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

ka-33jp-34-03-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 4 December 2024 • KA-33JP-34-03/2022 • 6 min read
3 cases cited (0 SG, 3 foreign)

Outcome

I therefore dismissed the procedural objections. (b) Jurisdiction to Vary Consent Orders 15. While a Consent Order has contractual finality, matrimonial law recognises statutory exceptions. Sections 83, 93, 96 and 97 LRA 1976 confer power upon the Court to vary maintenance and custody orders where there has been misrepresentation, mistake of fact, or material change in circumstances.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ka-33jp-34-03-2022). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Application by the Petitioner Wife - seeking to vary the terms of a Consent Order - Whether the application under Enclosure 29 was procedurally defective by reason of errors in date, affidavit jurat, and language requirements - Whether this Court had jurisdiction to vary a consent order entered - Whether there was sufficient evidence of a “material change in circumstances” to justify variation of maintenance and property terms. Jurisdiction to Vary Consent Orders - Consent Order has contractual finality - matrimonial law recognises statutory exceptions - Sections 83, 93, 96 and 97 LRA 1976 confer power upon the Court to vary maintenance and custody orders where there has been misrepresentation, mistake of fact, or material change in circumstances.

Practice Areas

Contract

Judges (1)

Mahazan binti Mat Taib Delivered

Counsel (4)

Balabedha & Co. Firm S. Raman & Co Firm Balabedha A/P Ramaloo Counsel Petitioner M Humavathi A/P Manikavelu Counsel Petitioner

Parties (2)

Jeganathan a/l Kanusamy Petitioner Santhi a/p Muniandy Petitioner

Cases Cited (3)

MY (3)
[2006] 3 MLJ 184 [2008] 5 MLJ 846 [2019] 9 CLJ 230

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ka-33jp-34-03-2022)