PEMPETISYEN 1. ) JEGANATHAN A/L KANUSAMY 2. ) SANTHI A/P MUNIANDY

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) JEGANATHAN A/L KANUSAMY 2. ) SANTHI A/P MUNIANDY

Procedural defects were minor and did not defeat the application; the Court had jurisdiction under sections 96 and 97 LRA 1976 to vary a consent order where there is a material change of circumstances, and the evidence established that the wife had borne the financial burden and that the children’s needs had increased, justifying an upward revision of maintenance and transfer of the husband’s half share of the matrimonial property.

Citation
KA-33JP-34-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner Husband: JEGANATHAN A/L KANUSAMY; Petitioner Wife: SANTHI A/P MUNIANDY
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 December 2024
Case Number
KA-33JP-34-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Joint Divorce Petition Under Section 52 Law Reform (marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (consent Order) / Variation Application (enclosure 29) to Vary Consent Order; High Court Full Reasons Judgment Dated 22/09/2025
Outcome
Enclosure 29 allowed; consent order varied in terms set out by the Court
Legal Topics
Maintenance, Custody and Access, Variation of Consent Order, Jurisdiction to Vary Orders, Material Change of Circumstances, Transfer of Matrimonial Property
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Matrimonial Law Civil Procedure Property Law Maintenance Custody and Access Variation of Consent Order Jurisdiction to Vary Orders +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JEGANATHAN A/L KANUSAMY

Petitioner Husband

SANTHI A/P MUNIANDY

Petitioner Wife

Procedural Posture

Joint Divorce Petition Under Section 52 Law Reform (marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (consent Order) / Variation Application (enclosure 29) to Vary Consent Order; High Court Full Reasons Judgment Dated 22/09/2025

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Enclosure 29 was procedurally defective (date, jurat, language)
  2. 2 Whether the Court had jurisdiction to vary a consent order
  3. 3 Whether there was a material change in circumstances justifying variation of maintenance and transfer of property

Ratio Decidendi

Procedural defects were minor and did not defeat the application; the Court had jurisdiction under sections 96 and 97 LRA 1976 to vary a consent order where there is a material change of circumstances, and the evidence established that the wife had borne the financial burden and that the children’s needs had increased, justifying an upward revision of maintenance and transfer of the husband’s half share of the matrimonial property.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 29 allowed; consent order varied in terms set out by the Court

Orders

  • Petitioner Husband to pay RM1,000 per child monthly until each child attains 18 years or completes higher education, whichever is earlier
  • Petitioner Husband's 1/2 share in the matrimonial property to be transferred to the Petitioner Wife with liberty for the Land Administrator to effect transfer in default