(iv) pindaan yang dipohon adalah munasabah dan membawa manfaat kepada kebajikan kedua-dua anak yang terlibat. Isu 1 : Pematuhan kehendak prosedur [15] Bagi isu pertama, Mahkamah ini berpuashati setelah meneliti afidavit sokongan Pempetisyen Isteri beserta eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan bersama Notis Permohonan bahawa Pempetisyen Isteri telah memenuhi kehendak-kehendak dalam Kaedah-Kaedah Prosiding Perceraian dan Perkahwinan 1980 (“Kaedah-Kaedah 1980”), khususnya kaedah 61 dan 63, Kaedah-Kaedah 1980 itu yang menghendaki permohonan itu disokong dengan afidavit yang, antara lain, menyatakan perincian mengenai harta dan pendapatan Pempetisyen Isteri dan alasan-alasan kenapa permohonan pindaan itu dibuat. [16] Perihal keperluan pihak yang memohon untuk variasi/pindaan kepada terma-terma dalam sesuatu Dekri Nisi untuk mematuhi kehendak kaedah 63 Kaedah-Kaedah 1980 itu ditekankan dalam kes Ngu Chu Chiong v. Lina Soo [2008] 2 CLJ 783; [2008] 3 MLJ 42, dimana Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan apa-apa permohonan pindaan/variasi hendaklah terlebih dahulu mematuhi kehendak prosedural Kaedah-Kaedah 1980 itu. Ketakpatuhan akan menyebabkan permohonan itu ditolak secara in limine litis. [17] Memandangkan Mahkamah ini telah memutuskan bahawa kehendak prosedural ini telah dipatuhi, maka Mahkamah ini meneliti kehendak kedua yang perlu dipenuhi oleh Pempetisyen Isteri. Isu 2 : Penghakiman Persetujuan boleh dipinda? [18] Dalam menangani isu ini, Mahkamah ini merujuk dan menggunapakai keputusan Evrol Mariette Peters J dalam kes Gong v Hong [2024] CLJU 2592 yang memutuskan: “[16] On this point, I found instructive the case of Lau Hui Sing v. Wong Chou Yong [2008] 9 CLJ 232; [2008] 5 MLJ 846, where it was stated by Hamid Sultan Abu Backer J (as he then was) in the following passage: As a general rule, consent order even in a divorce matter must be rarely disturbed unless there are exceptional circumstancesand that too clearly stated in the affidavit to warrant the intervention of the Court for the benefit of the minor children. Applying the above principle to the present case, the consent order must be honoured and complied with strictly by both parties, including the Petitioner Husband, since it was entered into voluntarily. [17] The Court's attention was also brought to the cases of Ng Say Chuan v. Lim Szu Ling (f) and another application [2010] 10 CLJ 371, and Sim Bee Khim v. Eugene Leong Weng Kong [2021] CLJU 916. [18] In Ng Say Chuan v. Lim Szu Ling (f) and another application, it was clarified by Yeoh Wee Siam JC (as she then was) in the following passage: Bearing in mind again that the interim order is a consent order, it therefore must be honoured and complied with by both parties. As far as possible, a consent order must rarely be disturbed unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the intervention of the court. [19] In Sim Bee Khim v. Eugene Leong Weng Kong, Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J, in endorsing Ng Say Chuan v. Lim Szu Ling (f) and another application, held as follows: …An order can be varied at any time by the Court based on any circumstances so provided. Ng Say Chuan v. Lim Szu Ling (supra) said that a consent order must rarely be disturbed unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the intervention of the Court. It is trite that consent orders must rarely be disturbed unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the intervention of the Court, and the burden is on RH to prove on a balance of probabilities that the need to vary legally existed. [20] Given this consensual basis, the Court had to approach this Application with careful consideration. This cautious approach was necessary because varying the terms of the Court Order that were previously consented to by both Parties was not a trivial matter. Varying these terms required a compelling justification. [21] Such careful approach by this Court was warranted to ensure respect for the terms agreed upon by the Parties and to promote stability and predictability in legal arrangements established through mutual consent. By requiring substantial reasons for any variation, the Court strived to maintain the integrity of the consent order, thereby encouraging Parties to rely on and uphold terms they had negotiated and agreed upon. This predictability was essential in legal contexts as it provided certainty and clarity for Parties involved, reducing the likelihood of frequent and arbitrary changes to legal orders and fostering a more stable legal environment. [22] A cautious approach was, therefore, adopted in meticulously scrutinising the Petitioner-Wife's assertions, to ensure that this Application was not based on irrelevant factors.” [19] Merujuk kepada kes Gong v Hong tersebut serta keputusan-keputusan yang dirujuk dalam kes itu, prinsip yang boleh dititip adalah seperti berikut: