Chang Suan Geen v Mahendran a/l Manickam (JA-33-29-01/2016)

Akta Membaharuhi Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan Penceraian) 1976 Antara MAHENDRAN A/L MANICKAM (NO. K/P: 790213-05-5697) PEMPETISYEN Dan CHANG SUAN GEEN (NO. K/P: 781223-08-5676) RESPONDEN

(Enclosure 28) CHOO KAH SING Judicial Commissioner High Court, Johor Bahru Date: 17.9.2017 Page 2 of 12 Introduction [1] Enclosure 28 was filed by the respondent wife to seek for an order to set aside and/or vary the terms of a Decree Nisi dated 29.12.2016. The terms of the Decree Nisi were entered into by consent between the petitioner husband and respondent wife. [2] On 6.7.2017, this Court dismissed the respondent’s application. The reasons for the decision are set down as below. Brief Facts [3] The hearing of the divorce petition was fixed for full trial on 27th, 28th and 29th of December 2016. On 29.12.2016, the trial ended. Before the Court could deliver its decision after hearing the oral evidence of the parties, the parties requested to record a consent Decree Nisi in Chambers. The Court acceded to the request and recorded a consent Decree Nisi. The terms of the consent Decree Nisi are as follows: i. Perkahwinan dibubarkan melainkan jika terdapat sebab-sebab yang memcukupi dibuktikan kepada Mahkamah dalam masa (3) bulan mulai dari tarikh dekri ini kenapa dekri ini tidak paptutnya dijadikan mutlak; ii. Bahawa Pempetisyen Suami hendaklah memberi nafkah sebanyak RM500.00 untuk Responden Isteri setiap bulan mulai dari 7hb Januari 2017; Page 3 of 12 iii. Bahawa Pempetisyen dikehendaki memberi 1/3 daripada bahagian harga rumah yang terletak di No. 74, Jalan Ara 2, Taman Desa Cemerlang, 81800 Ulu Tiram Johor Bahru, Johor kepada Responden menurut laporan penilaian terkini dan nilai hartanah tersebut perlu ditolak baki hutang (redemption sum) dan kos-kos yang lain seperti kos peguam, dan sebagainya; iv. Bahawa Responden dibenarkan untuk tinggal di rumah perkahwinan selama 3 bulan sahaja iaitu sehingga 1/4/2017 dan Responden harus berikan milikan kosong; v. Bahawa 1/3 nilai hartanah tersebut (selepas ditolak segala kos) hendaklah dibayar kepada Responden oleh Pempetisyen dalam tempoh 6 bulan dari tarikh perintah ini; vi. Bahawa kedua-dua pihak tidak dibenarkan untuk menggangu antara satu sama lain; vii. Bahawa kos permohonan ini ditanggung oleh pihak masing-masing. [4] Before the consent Decree Nisi could become absolute on 30.3.2017, on 12.3.2017, the respondent had filed enclosure 28 seeking the following orders: Page 4 of 12

Bahawa Dekri Nisi bertarikh 29 Disember, 2016 yang direkodkan sepertimana yang dinyatakan sebagai dipersetujui diketepikan DAN / ATAU Secara Alternatifnya Memberi kebenaran untuk Meminda terma-terma yang terkandung di dalam Dekri Nisi bertarikh 29 Disember, 2016 dengan meminda dengan terma-terma berikut, iaitu:-

Responden diberi kebenaran untuk memohon supaya Pempetisyen membayar Nafkah kepada Responden sebanyak RM1,000.00 sebulan yang akan diperintahkan kelak;

(ii) Aset Rumah Matrimonial (Matrimonial home’) yang beralamat No. 74, Jalan Ara 2, Taman Desa Cemerlang, 81800 Ulu Tiram, Johor hendaklah dibahagi-bahagian kepada ½ bahagian masing-masing dengan mengambil kira penilaian hartanah semasa setelah ditolak baki hutang (redemption sum) termasuk segala kos-kos terlibat termasuk penilaian dan penjualan hartanah tersebut;

(iii) Responden hendaklah diberi keutamaan untuk membeli hartanah tersebut dalam tempoh masa tiga (3) bulan dan sekiranya ianya ditolak oleh Responden, maka Pempetisyen boleh membelinya hartanah tersebut dalm tempoh tiga (3) bulan selanjutnya dengan membayar ½ Page 5 of 12 hasil jualan mengikut nilai pasaran setelah ditolak segala kos-kos termasuk bagi hutang (redemption sum) bagi hartanah tersebut dalam tempoh tiga (3) bulan;

(iv) Sekiranya Responden dan juga Pempetisyen tidak sanggup dan tidak bersetuju membeli hartanah tersebut dalam tempoh tiga (3) bulang masing-masing, maka hartanah tersebut hendaklah dijual secara persetujuan bersama kepada pihak ketiga secara ‘private treaty’ dan/atau melalui jualan secara lelongan awam dalam tempoh enam (6) bulan;

Responden diberi kebenaran untuk tinggal dirumah perkahwinan (matrimonial home) sehingga pembayaran bahagian masing-masing dalam tempoh yang dinyatakan di para (iii) dan/atau sehingga hartanah tersebut dilupuskan secara jualan lelongan awam / ‘private treaty’

(vi) Kos hendaklah ditanggung masing-masing; dan

(vii) Relif-relif dan perintah-perintah lain yang difikirkan wajar dan suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini. [5] The reasons provided by the respondent in support her application are as follows: Page 6 of 12

Dekri Nisi bertarikh 29 Disember, 2016 masih belum dijadikan Dekri Nisi Mutlak.

(ii) Responden telah melantik Peguamcaranya untuk bertindak dalam Petisyen Penceraian ini dengan penuh kepercayaan bahawa kepentingan dan hak Responden melalui Petisyen Penceraian ini diberi perhatian yang sewajarnya.

(iii) Pada 29 Disember, 2016, Responden telah hadir di Mahkamah dan Responden telah dinasihatkan oleh Peguamcaranya secara salah nyata bahawa terma-terma yang dinyatakan di dalam Deraf Nisi adalah terbaik dan sesuai dengan tidak memberikan penjelasan sepanuhnya.

(iv) Responden hanya difaham bahawa Mahkamah telah memerintahkan terma-terma tersebut dan Responden dikehendaki menerima terma-terma yang dinyatakan secara salah nyata di dalam Dekri Nisi bertarikh 29 Disember, 2016.

Responden telah pergi ke pejabat Peguamcara Responden untuk mendapatkan satu salinan Deraf Dekri Nisi berkenaan dan penjelasan lanjut untuk menyemak dan mendapat nasihat keatas kandungan terma-terma berkenaan. Page 7 of 12

(vi) Responden telah dimaklumkan bahawa terma-terma tersebut ada menyatakan bahawa terma-terma yang dinyatakan adalah atas persetujuan Responden yang mana Responden tidak diberikan nasihat dan penjelasan yang sewajarnya ke atas isi kandungan dan Responden tidak memberikan persetujuannya sepertimana yang dimaksudkan di dalam Deraf Dekri Nisi yang diberikan kepada Responden.

(vii) Responden juga adalah seorang yang buta huruf dan beliau tidak didedahkan dengan implikasi sepenuhnya mengenai terma-terma yang dinyatakan tersebut. [6] The essence of the respondent’s complaint is that she was ill-advised by the then solicitors who represented her and that she was not aware she had consented to the terms of the Decree Nisi and that she is an illiterate person. [7] The respondent had also filed two affidavits in support of her application, namely, Afidavit Sokongan (encl. 29) Afidavit Balasan Kepada Afidavit Jawapan Pempetisyen (encl. 32). The Finding of this Court Setting Aside A Consent Decree Nisi [8] The respondent has prayed to set-aside the consent Decree Nisi and/or in the alternative vary the terms of the said Decree Nisi. Page 8 of 12 [9] With regard to the issue of setting aside a consent Decree, this Court refers to the oft-quote judgment of his Lordship Raja Azlan Shah (as HRH then was) in the Federal Court decision in Ganapathy Chettiar v Lum Kum Chum & Ors; Meenachi v Lum Kum Chum & Ors [1981] 2 MLJ 145, wherein his Lordship held that “an order by consent is evidence of a contract between the parties and is binding on all parties to the order all the more so, where there is not a slightest question of any mistake as to facts or law.” “The only possible way in which a consent order could be altered would be by the consent of all parties: followed Australasian Automatic Weighing Machine Co. v Walter (1981) W.N. 170”, his Lordship further said. These legal propositions have been constantly applied in our jurisprudence of setting aside a consent decree (see Vadivellu Kalimuthu v Rajes Subramaniam [2014] 1 LNS 1276; Chen Choy & Son Realty Sdn Bhd v Ganesha Ganapathy & Anor [1987] 2 CLJ 433; Tay Hup Lian v Histyle Sdn Bhd & Anor; Lim Hock Bee @ Lim Ser Hai & Ors (Intervener) [2010] 1 LNS 418) [10] In this present case, the respondent was represented by her then solicitors and there was no mistake as to facts or law with regard to the terms. The terms in the consent Decree Nisi were translated to her by the court interpreter in the Tamil language that she was familiar with and was comfortable. She had unconditionally accepted the terms. The respondent’s complaint centred mainly on the ill-advice given by her then solicitors and that she was not aware she had entered into a consent Decree. These complaints could not hold true, because it appeared to this Court that the respondent was fully aware what was told and explained to her by the court interpreter as well as her then solicitors. Page 9 of 12 [11] The respondent wife also claimed she was illiterate, but none of the affidavits she had attested contained a jurat-clause to state that the contents were interpreted to her and she fully consented to the contents before she placed her signatures on them. This means she had attested all her affidavits with full knowledge of the contents, and she fully understood the contents in Bahasa language. She could not be illiterate. [12] For the above reasons, this Court was not satisfied the respondent has a legitimate complaint that she could not understand the contents of the consent Decree Nisi. She could have changed her mind on the terms of the consent Decree Nisi after several weeks later. The respondent could have gotten a third party’s advice telling her that she got a bad bargain and decided to come back to set aside the consent Decree Nisi. The respondent wife could not blow hot and cold whenever she likes. That could not be a valid reason for this Court to set aside the consent Decree Nisi. She has to abide by the terms of the consent Decree Nisi, unless the respondent wife could satisfy this Court that it has the jurisdictional power to vary the terms of the consent Decree Nisi. This leads to the respondent wife’s alternative prayer, i.e. vary the terms of the consent Decree. Varying the Terms of Consent Decree Nisi [13] The respondent wife has prayed to vary the consent order of her maintenance from RM500 to RM1,000.00. Section 83 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 allows the court the power to vary orders for maintenance provided that it is satisfied that the order made was based on any misrepresentation, mistake of fact or where there has been any material change in the circumstances. Page 10 of 12 [14] The respondent has claimed that she was ill-advised and she was not aware that she was entering into a consent Decree. In other words, she was asserting there was a mistake of fact that she had entered into a consent Decree. This Court finds that the respondent wife was fully aware what she was doing, there could be no mistake of fact, and neither could there be any misrepresentation. The contents of the consent Decree Nisi were translated, repeated and explained to the respondent with the presence of her then solicitors, and she consented to them before they were recorded by this Court. [15] With regard to the other prayers which are mainly to deal with the matrimonial property, this Court is of the considered view that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the prayers to vary the terms entered into for the matrimonial property. [16] Section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 only allows the court the power to deal with the matrimonial property during the subsisting of a matrimonial proceedings, not after a consent Decree Nisi has been entered (see Federal Court decision in Manokaram Subramaniam v Ranjit Kaur Nata Singh [2008] 6 CLJ 209). Seeking a Rehearing? [17] Upon close examination of the contents stated in enclosure 32, the respondent’s Afidavit Balasan Kepada Afidavit Jawapan Pempetisyen, the respondent has repeated in her affidavit her contributions to the matrimonial property which she had stated in her testimony during the Page 11 of 12 hearing of the petition before the consent Decree Nisi was reached. Although the respondent did not pray for a rehearing, the contents of her affidavit in support of this application was as if she was seeking a rehearing of her plea. [18] In the event the respondent is seeking a rehearing, the petitioner’s counsel pointed out to this Court that the respondent has come to this Court with the wrong mode of proceedings. She ought to have filed her application via rule 44 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980, not by way of the normal application under the Rules of Court, the counsel for the petitioner submitted. Rule 44 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 states, inter alia, as follows:

An application for re-hearing of a cause tried by a judge alone (whether in the High Court or a Sessions Court in West Malaysia or a First Class Magistrate’s Court in East Malaysia), where no error of the court at the hearing is alleged, shall be made to a judge.

Unless otherwise directed, the application shall be made to the judge by whom the cause was tried and shall be heard in open court.

….

Unless otherwise directed, the notice must be issued within 6 weeks after the judgment and served on every other party to the cause not less than 14 days before the day fixed for the hearing of the application. Page 12 of 12 [19] This Court could not accept the respondent’s application as one seeking for a rehearing for three simple reasons. First, the respondent did not pray for an order of rehearing. Secondly, if the application was meant for a rehearing, then the respondent has used the wrong mode in her application. Thirdly, if the application was meant to have filed via rule 44, it was out of time, i.e. 6 weeks from 29.12.2016. The enclosure 28 was filed on 12.3.2017, more than 6 weeks from 20.12.2016. Conclusion [20] Based on the above reasoning, this Court dismissed the respondent’s application and ordered costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent. -Signed- ……………………………………….. (CHOO KAH SING) Judicial Commissioner High Court, Johor Bahru Counsel for the Petitioner husband : Ms. Barathi Tetuan Kamarudin Yusof & Associates Counsel for the Respondent wife : Mr. Krishnan Tetuan N. Krishnan Nair & Co.