PEMPETISYEN 1. ) Ng Meng Song 2. ) Teh Siew Sun

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) Ng Meng Song 2. ) Teh Siew Sun

The application was dismissed because it was procedurally defective for being brought under section 97 rather than section 96 (a consent order is a court order requiring proof of material change to vary) and, on the merits, the petitioner failed to prove a material change or provide credible evidence that varying the consent order was reasonable or in the children’s welfare; custody remains with the Petitioner-Husband and no child maintenance was ordered to the Petitioner-Wife.

Citation
WA-33JP-1609-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner Husband: MEN; Petitioner Wife: TEN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 March 2024
Case Number
WA-33JP-1609-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Joint Divorce Petition / Application to Vary Consent Order (variation Application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Custody, Child Maintenance, Variation of Consent Order, Procedural Objection, Welfare of the Child, Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Matrimonial Law Custody Child Maintenance Variation of Consent Order Procedural Objection Welfare of the Child Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MEN

Petitioner Husband

TEN

Petitioner Wife

Procedural Posture

Joint Divorce Petition / Application to Vary Consent Order (variation Application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the variation application should have been brought under section 96 or section 97 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether there was a material change in circumstances warranting variation of a court consent order
  3. 3 Whether variation was reasonable and in the welfare best interests of the children

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because it was procedurally defective for being brought under section 97 rather than section 96 (a consent order is a court order requiring proof of material change to vary) and, on the merits, the petitioner failed to prove a material change or provide credible evidence that varying the consent order was reasonable or in the children’s welfare; custody remains with the Petitioner-Husband and no child maintenance was ordered to the Petitioner-Wife.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Petitioner-Husband