Jeyarine Monica Joan Poobal Royan v Kumaresan A/L Soundararajan (BA-24F-108-05/2024)

This was an application by the Plaintiff wife seeking various reliefs including sole guardianship and custody, as well as care and control of the child of the marriage, limited access by the Defendant husband and child maintenance including arrears thereof.

On 3.6.2025 after hearing arguments by counsel, the Court made the following orders :- S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ

Joint guardianship and custody of the Child is given to the Plaintiff and Defendant;

Plaintiff is to have primary physical care and control of the Child;

The Defendant is to have unsupervised access to the Child in the following manner :

Every Wednesday from 4 pm to 8 pm;

(ii) Overnight Access every alternate weekends from Saturday 10 am to Sunday 7 pm.

Defendant shall pay Child maintenance in the monthly sum of RM1,500 w.e.f February 2023 with increase of 5% every two years;

Arrears of Maintenance : Allowed

On 28 July 2025, the Court made further orders in regard to access as follows :

Deepavali Defendant to have access from Eve of Deepavali 10 am to 2nd day of Deepavali 8 pm

Thaipusam Defendant to have access from 10 am – 7 pm on Thaipusam Day S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ

Mother’s Day/Father’s Day 10 am – 7 pm with respective parent

Child’s Birthday Defendant to have access as follows : Weekday 2 pm – 6 pm Saturday/Sunday 10 am – 4 pm

Father/Mother’s Birthday : 10 am – 7 pm

Christmas Plaintiff to have access from Christmas Eve 10 am to 2nd day of Christmas 7 pm

New Years Eve/New Years Day : Access on odd years to Plaintiff, Even years to Defendant from 5pm New Year’s Eve – 7 pm New Years Day

Easter Weekend Child shall be with the Plaintiff. Plaintiff to replace the weekend access given to the Defendant.

Chinese New Year/ Hari Raya Access on odd years to Plaintiff, Even years to Defendant from 5 pm CNY/Hari Raya Eve to 6 pm on 2nd Day CNY/Hari Raya S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ

Therapy Centre/Preschool Holidays/Public Holidays If it is only for one day : Each parent takes turns alternately from 10 – 7 pm (no overnight). If it is more than one day : Each parent shall share and take turns equally alternately including overnight access (includes the weekend Defendant is given access).

Overseas Holidays during school holidays : Each parent must inform/give notice to the other parent 1 month’s notice and provide the other parent with the itinerary of the holiday.

Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are aggrieved with a part of the decision and have filed their respective Notices of Appeal as follows :

Defendant’s Notice of Appeal dated 11.6.2025 which concerns his grievance on the following orders :

Terms of Access

(ii) Arrears of Child Maintenance

Defendant’s Notice of Appeal dated 26.8.2025 appealing against the Court’s orders on access for Deepavali, Chinese New Year and Hari Raya.

Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal dated 26.8.2025 appealing against the Court’s orders for terms of access for the S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ Child’s Birthday and conditions for exercising holiday trips during school holidays.

These are the reasons for my decision. Brief Background 6. The Plaintiff and Defendant both ophthalmologists, were legally married on 23.5.2018.

Their only child, a son was born on 25.8.2022.

The marriage turned rocky amid allegations of aggressive and abusive conduct on the part of the Defendant.

In February 2023 the Plaintiff and the Child returned to live at her parent’s home and they have been living separately since then.

Immediately after the separation the Defendant began spending time with the Child at the Plaintiff’s parent’s home in the weekdays while she was at work.

The parties have now filed mirror Originating Summons each seeking for their respective custody and access arrangements.

Pending the Court’s final decision this Court ruled on 2.8.2024 that the Defendant would be given access to the Child on Mondays to Thursdays from 10 am to 4 pm every day. That S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ access excludes public holidays. There were no orders for overnight stays and interstate travel.

Later this Court had on 24.10.2024 allowed overnight access for Deepavali of that year where the Child spend overnight access on 30.10.2024 from 9 am to 31.10.2024 7 pm with the Defendant in Kuala Lumpur.

The hearing of the OS was subsequently adjourned pending the filing of affidavits and submissions. Recent Development Regarding the Child 15. Meanwhile early this year the Child was diagnosed with Level 2 Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). In relation to the Diagnostic Evaluation Report dated 25.1.2025 a number of recommendations were made on how to approach the diagnosis and how to treat the Child.

The Diagnostic Evaluation Report (DVR) has recommended among others that the Child be placed in a preschool setting where he is exposed to peers his age and be observed for the next 6 months. Should the autism symptoms persist or worsen then it is recommended for the Child to undergo one to one individualized Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) therapy.

A follow up appointment with the doctor has been scheduled to update on the findings of the DVR and the development of the Child. S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ

Given this new development the Plaintiff has taken the decision to take a break from her career to be with the Child to provide the Child with more care and support whilst implementing the first step in the recommendations pursuant to the DVR. The issues 19. I had earlier determined that joint guardianship and joint custody of the Child should be conferred upon both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, with physical care and control vested in the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, in the present application, the primary issue that, in my view, now remains for consideration is the extent and terms of access that ought to be accorded to the Defendant in relation to the Child. Decision of the Court 21. At the time the decision was rendered, the Child was two years and eight months old. In view of the Child’s tender age at the material time, the Defendant did not vigorously contest the issue of guardianship, custody, care, and control save that guardianship and custody should be shared.

The Defendant has urged this Court to recognise his equal parental rights of access to the Child. He contended that since the Child’s birth, he has consistently maintained contact and has exercised access without interruption. The Defendant further submitted that during the periods when the Child is under his S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ care, he has established a regular routine that contributes positively to the Child’s development and well-being.

The Plaintiff further asserted that it was through his close observation and active involvement that he first detected the Child’s special condition, which, in his view, underscores the significance and quality of the time he spends with the Child.

He highlighted that he and his family share a strong and affectionate bond with the Child hence there exists no valid reason for the Plaintiff to limit or restrict his access. He maintained that continued and meaningful contact with both parents is essential to the Child’s emotional stability and sense of belonging.

The Defendant argued that he has enjoyed regular and unrestricted access to the Child since birth, the Plaintiff’s proposal that his access be limited to two weekdays per week for only three hours each time is unreasonable and would amount to an act of parental alienation. He maintained that such a restriction would unjustly diminish the strong paternal bond he has built with the Child and would not be conducive to the Child’s emotional well-being.

The Defendant further highlighted that during his access periods, he actively engages the Child in various activities such as visits to the supermarket, pet shops, bird park, and aquarium. These outings, he submitted, have contributed meaningfully to the S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ Child’s cognitive, language, and sensory development. He claims that he personally attends to the Child’s daily needs during his access periods, including feeding, bathing, and ensuring the Child takes a short nap before being returned to the Plaintiff’s care.

It was his submission that the structured routine established by the Defendant during his access time provides the Child with enriching, hands-on parental involvement, and, in his view, may even offer a more beneficial environment than that of an average child raised in a dual-working-parent household where daily caregiving is often delegated to third parties such as childcare providers or domestic helpers.

Relying on section 89 of the LRA 1976 he urged the Court to use its powers to grant equal access to him including daily, weekend and overnight access maintaining that equal access of both parents to the child has a great psychological advantage to the Child. He also referred to research studies by overseas child experts supporting the importance of both parents involvement in a child’s early years.

The Plaintiff in response has resisted the Defendant’s assertions. She contended that the Child is often returned home overtired and overstimulated after spending the day with the Defendant, resulting in tantrums, restlessness and disturbed sleep during the night. According to her this stems from the Defendant’s tendency to engage the Child in excessive activities without regard to his S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ age limitations. She explained that it often took her several hours to help the Child regain his natural rhythm and cheerful disposition. In her view, the Child’s fatigue and irregular sleeping patterns following access visits demonstrate that the current arrangement is not conducive to his overall well-being.

The Plaintiff further submitted that the existing interim access arrangement, as ordered by this Court on 2 August 2024, has given rise to unnecessary friction and tension between the parties adversely affecting the Child. She argued that continued disputes and irregular routines are incompatible with the Child’s best interests and that stability, structure, and therapeutic consistency are of paramount importance at this stage of his life. She contended that she is the suitable parent to ensure that the Child receives all these.

The Plaintiff emphasized that given the Child’s tender age and the recent diagnosis of Level 2 ASD, it is in the Child’s best interest to allow her to implement, without delay, the professional recommendations and therapeutic interventions prescribed by the attending specialist and the Early Autism Project (“EAP”). The Plaintiff has given her assurance and commitment to fully comply with and carry out these recommendations in order to support the Child’s developmental needs. She has taken a break from her career to provide the Child with more care and support whilst implementing the first step in the recommendations by the EAP. S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ

The Plaintiff further contended that the Defendant has failed to adduce any credible evidence to show that she is an unfit mother or that the statutory presumption under section 88(3) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 has been displaced. On the contrary, she argued that the Child thrived under her consistent care and structured routine. She also took issue with what she viewed as the Defendant’s attempt to weaponize the Child’s diagnosis to position himself favourably, stressing that the focus should remain on the Child’s welfare rather than on parental rivalry. Accordingly, she urged the Court to accept her suggestions on the terms and manner of access, which she describes are reasonable, age appropriate and consistent with the Child’s needs.

It was immediately apparent to the Court that the doctrine of tender years, as encapsulated in section 88(3) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (“LRA 1976”) applies i.e. that it good for a child below the age of seven years to be with his or her mother. While it is a rebuttable presumption, the underlying principle of that presumption is simply that it is undesirable to disturb the life of a young child without compelling reasons. The Court’s primary consideration is always the welfare and best interest of the child, not the competing wishes or rights of the parents.

The evidence before this Court clearly establishes that since birth, the Child has been under the Plaintiff’s continuous custody are and control. Although the Defendant has been actively S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ involved, the Plaintiff remains the Child’s primary caregiver. Here the Court is dealing with a very young child. The Child is reliant on the Plaintiff for his day to day needs, both physical and emotional. The Plaintiff continues to breastfeed the Child, which reinforces the close maternal bond and dependency at this tender age.

I have taken into account that since August 2024 the Defendant has cared for the Child four days a week from 10 am to 4 pm and prior to that, he maintained regular daily visits. This consistent involvement is commendable and beneficial to the Child, however it does not displace the Plaintiff’s established role as the principal caregiver particularly in light of the Child’s recent diagnosis and the need for continuity of care and therapy management. The Child has always returned home to his mother every day after access with his father had ended. The Child spends his nights, weekends and holidays under her care. I am of the view that at such a tender age the Child’s well being is best served by being in the full time care of his mother.

This view is aligned with well-established judicial authorities on the matter. Our courts have consistently affirmed the principle that, in matters concerning a child of tender years there can be no true substitute for a mother’s care and presence. Raja Azlan Shah FCJ (as he then was) has described the unique bond between a mother and her child in Teh Eng Kim v Yew Peng Siong [ 1977] CLJU 138 emphasizing the irreplaceable nature of a mother’s nurturing : S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ The youngest child, Bernard, is of tender years. In my opinion, his place right now is with the mother. "No thing, and no person," said Sir John Romilly MR, in the case of Austin v. Austin [1865] 35 Beav 259 263 "and no combination of them, can, in my opinion, with regard to a child of tender years, supply the place of a mother, and the welfare of the child is so intimately connected with its being under the care of the mother, that no extent of kindness on the part of any other person can supply that place.." This view has found judicial favour in many jurisdictions: in Australia, for example, in Kades v. Kades,(4) the High Court, in a joint judgment stated: "What is left is the strong presumption which is not one of law but is founded on experience and upon the nature of ordinary human relationships, that a young girl, should have the love, care and attention of the child's mother and that her upbringing should be the responsibility of her mother, if it is not possible to have the responsibility of both parents living together." In Canada, Muloch CJ in Re Orr [1973] 2 DLR 77 commented that, "In the case of a father and mother living apart and each claiming the custody of a child, the general rule is that the mother, other things being equal, is entitled to the custody and care of a child during what is called the period of nurture, namely, until it S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ attains about seven years of age, the time during which it needs the care of the mother more than that of the father".

At the same time, the Court also takes cognizance of the evolving recognition of the father’s vital role in a child’s upbringing. As observed in Vickenswaran Nithiyananthan v Siva Pakiam Ramasamy [2025] 9 CLJ 675 and the Singapore decision of APE v APF [2015] SGHC 17, parental involvement on both sides is indeed in the best interests of the Child. The father’s participation contributes to the child’s emotional security, sense of identity and overall development.

That said, the Court must balance these considerations with the Child’s age, developmental stage, and therapeutic needs. The Child is about to being preschool and will undergo behavioural therapy for his ASD.

While the Court recognises and commends both parents for their commitment to the Child’s upbringing, it is the court’s considered view that one parent assumes primary responsibility to ensure consistency and faithful adherence to professional recommendations concerning the Child’s early intervention and developmental needs. The Plaintiff having taken leave from work to devote herself full-time to the Child’s care is best placed to provide the necessary stability, structure and attention during this critical phase of the Child’s life. S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Child’s welfare is best served by remaining in the physical care and control of the Plaintiff, while custody shall be shared jointly with the Defendant. This arrangement ensures that both parents continue to play meaningful roles in the Child’s life and jointly make major decisions on matters of education, health and welfare.

The Court is therefore satisfied that the Plaintiff is a fit and suitable parent to lead and guide the Child through this early and unchartered phase of implementing the recommendations set out in the DVR. Access to the Child 42. Access is the basic right of the child rather than the parents (Leong Sam Moy v Low Chee Thiam [1997] 2 CLJ Supp 212).

The right of access to a child is provided for in section 89 of the LRA 1976:- “Section 89 - Orders subject to conditions

An order for custody may be made subject to such conditions as the court may think fit to impose, and subject to such conditions, if any, as may from time to time apply, shall entitle the person given custody to decide all questions relating to the upbringing and education of the child. S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection

(1), an order for custody may –

contain conditions as to the place where the child is to reside, as to the manner of his or her education and as to the religion in which he or she is to be brought up;

provide for the child to be temporarily in the care and control of some person other than the person given custody;

provide for the child to visit a parent deprived of custody or any member of the family of a parent who is dead or has been deprived of custody at such times and for such periods as the court may consider reasonable;

give a parent deprived of custody or any member of the family of a parent who is dead or has been deprived of custody the right of access to the child at such times and with such frequency as the court may consider reasonable; or

prohibit the person given custody from taking the child out of Malaysia.”. S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ

Since physical care and control of the Child was awarded to the Plaintiff, it follows that the Defendant shall be given appropriate access in order to maintain his relationship with the Child.

Reference is also made to the case of Celvambigal a/p Thirucelvam v Pandian a/l Subramaniam [2015] MLJU 2093 where the court held :- “There is no doubt that the children must be allowed to spend quality time with both the parents and the matter assumes heightened importance when the parents have gone separate ways in a pending divorce proceeding that would culminate with an order for dissolution of the marriage. Reasonable access is the norm where the other parent has custody of the children. It must not be forgotten that “access is the basic right of the children rather than the parent” as was highlighted by her Ladyship Zainun Ali J in Leong Sam Moy v Low Chee Thiam [1997] 2 CLJ Supp 212 at p 214 as follows : The law as it stands on this authority cited before me says that “access is the basic right of the child rather than the parent.” The Court must consider whether the welfare of the children is prompted by access or the reverse and decide accordingly.”

In determining the terms and manner of access, the paramount consideration was the welfare of the Child. All other S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ considerations must be subordinate to this consideration. Not even the wants and wishes of the parents can be accepted unless it coincides with the welfare of the Child. The Court must prioritise what best serves the Child’s welfare rather than the preferences or convenience of either parent. It will be relevant to keep in mind the care, comfort, wellbeing and happiness of the Child in deciding the terms and manner of access at this early and crucial stage of his life.

During the course of submissions, reference was made to various overseas reports, research papers and expert commentaries on child care, early intervention and parenting practices. While such materials may offer general insights, this Court is not inclined to place reliance on these foreign authorities or literature, as they do not necessarily align with the local cultural context, family dynamics, and societal norms within which the Child is being raised.

Child welfare and parenting approaches cannot be applied in isolation from the values, traditions and lived realities of the community in which the Child grows up. What may be regarded as appropriate or effective in a foreign jurisdiction must be evaluated with caution, as social expectations, familial support structures, and caregiving customs may differ substantially.

Accordingly, this Court prefers to base its assessment on local realities, the Child’s specific circumstances, and the conduct and capacity of the parties before it, rather than on generalised or S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ foreign-based expert opinions which may not be entirely suitable to our cultural and societal setting.

It is the view of this Court that the determination of the manner and duration of access to the Child has to revolve around the factor that the Child must attend preschool and undergo therapy to address his ASD symptoms. This is an important beginning for the Child and if not handled properly may jeopardize his future development and well being.

I have taken into consideration the recommendations stated in the Diagnostic Evaluation Report dated 25 January 2025. I am of the considered view that these recommendations ought to be followed. They represent a measured and sensible approach that prioritises the Child’s early social development while allowing for timely intervention should his condition require additional support. It is therefore essential that both parents cooperate fully in implementing these recommendations and ensure that the Child’s transition into a preschool setting, as well as any subsequent therapy, proceeds smoothly and without disruption.

With this new development, it is evident that both parents must make certain adjustments and personal sacrifices to support the Child through this early stage of intervention. Their joint cooperation, patience, and consistency in following professional recommendations will be crucial to ensuring that the Child’s transition into preschool and any subsequent therapy is as smooth and beneficial as possible. S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ

Having regard to all circumstances, I am of the view that the previous daily access arrangement must be revised. It would not be in the Child’s best interest to be taken daily from preschool to the Defendant’s home and returned late in the evening, as such routine inevitably causes fatigue, overstimulation and disruption to his rest and sleep routine.

At this developmental stage, the Child requires a calm and consistent weekday routine. It is far better for the Child to attend preschool in the morning, return home thereafter to rest and follow a consistent and unhurried weekday routine rather than being shuttled between households on a daily basis. Daily access by the Defendant would not foster the Child’s welfare. I am of the view that any additional daily travel other than to school and back would put the Child in an unsettling condition to gravely affect his well being in the long run. Excessive travelling during weekdays would only serve to disturb the Child’s equilibrium and is inconsistent with the stability and structure essential for his well-being.

Hence, I am firmly of the view that the Defendant shall be accorded unsupervised access once a week, on Wednesdays from 4.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. This arrangement strikes a proper balance between the Defendant’s right of access and the Child’s need for rest and stability during the school week. Under this schedule, the Child may attend preschool in the morning, return home thereafter to rest, and awaken refreshed to spend quality time with his father in the evening. Such a routine ensures that S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ access remains meaningful without compromising the Child’s comfort, well-being, or daily rhythm.

Prior to this decision, the Defendant did not have the benefit of overnight access to the Child. In light of the present variation in the access arrangement—where the Defendant’s weekday access has been reduced to one day per week—I find it appropriate and equitable to compensate for this reduction by granting the Defendant uninterrupted and unsupervised overnight access on alternate weekends.

This will allow the Defendant sufficient opportunity to bond with the Child in a home environment, without unduly disrupting the Child’s routine or schooling schedule. In arriving at this decision, I had to carefully consider the need to strike a fair balance between the Defendant’s right to maintain meaningful contact with the Child and the need to provide the Child with stability, rest and routine. I was of the view that at the Child’s present developmental stage compounded with the recent ASD diagnosis, too much disruption to his daily schedule could cause unnecessary fatigue and affect his adjustment to nursery life. In my view alternate weekend overnight access shall provide the Defendant with adequate time to nurture his fatherly bond and participate in the Child’s upbringing, while ensuring the Child remains well rested and settled during the week. S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ

Accordingly, the Defendant shall be entitled to overnight access every alternate weekend, commencing Saturday at 10:00 a.m. and ending on Sunday at 7:00 p.m.

For the avoidance of doubt, both the weekday and weekend overnight access shall not include interstate travel. Should the Defendant wish to travel with the Child outside the state during his access period, he shall provide reasonable advance notice to the Plaintiff and obtain her prior written consent before making any such arrangements. Deepavali/Chinese New Year/Hari Raya Access 60. Holidays and festive seasons are meaningful opportunities for children to build lasting memories with their parents. The Child is to be encouraged to celebrate with his parents. It provides the non custodial parent to engage in extended bonding experiences beyond the routine weekend or weekday access. In this case, I find it appropriate that the Defendant be granted reasonable holiday and festive access to the Child, provided that such access does not interfere with the child’s schooling or established routine.

The Defendant is granted access to the Child as provided for in Paragraph 2 above. The duration granted is, in the Court’s view, sufficient for the Child and the Defendant to enjoy meaningful time together before the Child resumes his structured routine. S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ Birthday of Child 62. With respect to the Child’s birthday, both parents shall have the opportunity to celebrate. Where the birthday falls on a weekday, the Defendant shall have access from 2 pm to 6 pm and where it falls on a weekend, he shall have access from 4 pm to 6 pm after which the Child shall return to the Plaintiff’s care. This arrangement ensures that both parents can share in significant milestones of the Child’s life without causing undue disruption to his established routine. Arrears of Child Maintenance 63. It is trite that every parent has the duty to maintain his or her child, regardless of who has custody. Section 92 encapsulates this duty in the following manner :- “92. Duty to maintain children Except where an agreement or order of court otherwise provides, it shall be the duty of a parent to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his or her children, whether they are in his or her custody or the custody of any other person, either by providing them with such accommodation, clothing, food and education as may be reasonable having regard to his or her means and station in life or by paying the cost thereof.”. S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ

In addition, section 93 of the LRA 1976 sets out the Court’s power to order maintenance for a child and further emphasises the father’s obligation to provide for his child :

Power for court to order maintenance for children

The court may at any time order a man to pay maintenance for the benefit of his child :-

if he has refused or neglected reasonably to provide for the child;

if he has deserted his wife and the child is in her charge;

during the pendency of any matrimonial proceedings; or

when making or subsequent to the making of an order placing the child in the custody of any other person.

The court shall have the corresponding power to order a woman to pay or contribute towards the maintenance of her child where it is satisfied that having regard to her means it is reasonable so to order. An order under subsection (1) or (2) may direct payment to the person having custody or care and control of the child or trustees for the child."

The Defendant has proposed to contribute a sum of RM1,500 per month as maintenance for the Child. The evidence before this Court shows that he has, since May 2024, been making S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ contributions amounting to RM1,000 per month towards the Child’s upkeep.

In her Affidavit in Support (Enclosure 2), the Plaintiff itemised the Child’s monthly expenses — including food, milk formula, diapers, clothing, medical care, and other incidentals — amounting to RM5,320 per month. She suggests that the costs of maintaining the Child should be split equally between them. While the Court accepts that the Plaintiff has diligently provided for the Child’s needs, the total claimed appears to be on the high side having regard to the Child’s present age and actual requirements.

The Defendant has, however, failed to provide full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances. No documentary proof of income or other credible evidence of his means has been furnished. It has not escaped the attention of this Court that the Defendant has chosen not to place before the Court sufficient material to substantiate his financial position. It is the duty of the Defendant to make the fullest disclosure of all relevant information in respect of his financial capability to maintain the Child. Nonetheless, his willingness to contribute RM1,500 monthly is noted and, in the Court’s view, represents a reasonable and fair sum for the Child’s maintenance at this stage of his development.

Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of this case, and applying the relevant statutory provisions, this Court S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ orders that the Defendant shall pay child maintenance in the sum of RM1,500 per month, such payment to commence from February 2023.

At present, the Child is below three years of age. His current needs are modest, but they will naturally expand as he grows, particularly when he begins attending nursery and later kindergarten. The Court must also take judicial notice of the rising cost of living, and the consequent increase in the expenses required to maintain a young child in today’s society. In this regard, I agree with the Plaintiff that there should be an increment of 5% every two years, which is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. This arrangement shall remain in force pending the disposal of any future divorce proceedings filed by either party, at which time the quantum of maintenance may be reviewed or varied upon proof of a material change in circumstances.

The evidence further shows that the parties have lived apart intermittently since the Child’s birth and permanently separated in February 2023. During much of this period, the Defendant did not contribute consistently towards the Child’s maintenance and only began regular payments in May 2024. The Plaintiff, meanwhile, had to shoulder the entire financial burden of caring for the Child, including all day-to-day and medical expenses.

In my assessment, it is therefore reasonable and just to allow the Plaintiff’s claim for arrears of maintenance to take effect from S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ February 2023 calculated at the rate of RM1,500 per month, less any amounts already paid by the Defendant.

Parties shall bear their own costs. Dated 20 October 2025. (JULIE LACK) Judge High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Selangor Darul Ehsan S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ (SELANGOR) Counsel for the Plaintiff : David Thomas Mathews with Koh Jo Vin (Messrs Mathews Hun Lachimanan.) Counsel for the Defendant : Ravi Nekoo with Sarah Anthony (Messrs Nekoo) S/N 6oMwAmn9h0WwF/Jpv5r2uQ