Back
2020 MarsdenLR 3147
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
DHARSHINI GANESON – Appellant
Versus
DORAISINGAM THAMBYRAJAH – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: B-02(IM)-468-03/2019]
Consent orders related to child custody and maintenance can be varied by the court when there are significant changes in circumstances, emphasizing the welfare of the child as a paramount consideration.
Headnote:(A) Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 – Sections 83, 96, and 97 – Variation of decree nisi – Petitioner Wife sought custody of special needs child and variation of trust of matrimonial home based on changed circumstances – High Court allowed temporary custody with future evaluation planned – Appeal against the dismissal of enforcement of inconsistent grounds of judgment – Court held that consent orders can be varied in exceptional circumstances for child welfare. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 22, 24)
(B)
Variation Orders – Consent orders in matrimonial matters can be altered by the Court where there are material changes in circumstances that affect the welfare of children. (Paras 10, 14)
(C)
Distinction between Judgment and Grounds of Judgment – Sealed orders provide enforceable judgments, while grounds reflect the judge's reasoning and are non-enforceable. (Paras 20, 24)
In The High Court
[1] By consent of parties, a Decree Nisi was granted by the High Court on 1 November 2010 dissolving their marriage, wherein the following specific ancillary orders were, inter alia, made:
(a) that custody, control and care of their elder daughter Preeya Nanthini (a special needs child) be granted to the Respondent Husband;
(b) that their matrimonial home at No 5, Jalan SS1/41A, Kampung Tunku, 47300 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("the Matrimonial Home"), registered in the joint names of the parties, was to be held in trust for their two children in equal shares in accordance to the terms spelt out in the Decree Nisi.
[2] On 4 March 2013, the Petitioner Wife filed a Notice of Application to vary the Decree Nisi, in which the Petitioner Wife sought custody, control and care of their elder daughter Preeya Nanthini be given to her, instead of the Respondent Husband. Further, the Petitioner Wife also sought a variation in terms of the declaration of trust in respect of the Matrimonial Home, where the Petitioner Wife sought for an order to sell the Matrimonial Home and for the proceeds of sale be given to her as lifetime maintenance for Preeya Nanthini. The application was made on grounds of change of circumstances.
[3] On 6 April 2015, the High Court allowed the Petitioner Wifes application for variation of the Decree Nisi with conditions ("Variation Order"). Pursuant to the Variation Order the Petitioner Wife was given temporary custody, control and care of their elder daughter Preeya Nanthini for a period of between 6 to 8 months. Thereafter, following evaluation by a psychologist in "8 months time", the Court would make definitive orders as regards the custody, control and care of Preeya Nanthini, and also attend to the application for variation to the terms of trust in respect of the Matrimonial Home. The salient terms of the Variation Order reads as follows:
a) Pempetisyen Isteri diberikan hak penjagaan, pemeliharaan dan kawalan selama 6-8 bulan mengikut saranan psikologi ke atas anak perkahwinan yang istimewa bernama Preeya Nanthini Doraisingam;
b) Pempetisyen Suami diberikan akses untuk mengambil Nanthini pada jam 7:00 malam pada hari Jumaat dan memulangkan Nanthini kepada Pempetisyen Isteri pada hari Ahad sebelum atau pada jam 7:00 petang setiap sekali dalam sebulan;
c) Nanthini akan dikekalkan di sekolah Wisma Harapan;
d) Keputusan bagi Rumah Matrimoni dibuat selepas penilaian semula oleh psikologi selepas tempoh 8 bulan; dan
e) Nafkah untuk kedua-dua anak perkahwinan adalah RM1500.00 setiap bulan.
[4] It was clear from the terms of the Variation Order that the variation in respect of the disposal or sale of Matrimonial Home was to be considered by the Court only after the psychologists assessment of Preeya Nanthini in 8 months time.
[5] However, four months after the Variation Order, the learned Judicial Commissioner handed down her Grounds of Judgment dated 21 August 2015 in respect of that order, which in part seemed inconsistent with the terms of the Variation Order. In particular, the learned Judicial Commissioner had stated in paras (4) to (7) of the Grounds of Judgment as follows:
[4] Plaintif memfailkan permohonan (Lampiran 11) bagi meminda dan mengubah terma di dalam Dekri Nisi Persetujuan bertarikh 1 November 2010 tersebut bagi mengubah hak jagaan, kawalan dan pemeliharaan Nanthini dan juga kl 15(a) diubah kepada:
(a) Bahawa rumah matrimoni tersebut yang mana kini dipegang oleh Defendan dan Plaintif secara sesama adalah dijual dan hasil jualan diberikan sepenuhnya kepada Defendan sebagai ganti kepada nafkah Nanthini seumur hidup beliau.
[5] Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa permohonan Plaintiff di Lampiran 11 dibenarkan yang antara lainnya adalah harta matrimoni itu dijual dan hasil jualannya diberikan sepenuhnya kepada Defendan sebagai ganti nafkah Nanthini seumur hidup.
[6] Mahkamah meminda perintah jagaan Nanthini berdasarkan laporan yang disediakan oleh Pakar psikolo
