Ragunath A/L Vadiveloo v Dinita A/P Madhavan (JA-24F-173-05/2025)

The Plaintiff Husband (“PH”) has filed an application (Enclosure 23), inter alia, to seek interim access to their child until disposal of the Originating Summons (Enclosure 1).

After considering the Affidavits and submissions by the Parties, I allowed Enclosure 23.

Below are my grounds of the decision.

The background facts in this application are gathered from the cause S/N Clx1ug/pY0iAwfpLNkJQag papers and submissions of the parties.

DW and the PH registered their marriage on 31.12.2021 at Kuil Sri Bala Subramaniar Skudai. As a result of the said marriage, they were blessed with one child by the name of Abirupa Ragunath (“AR”). After the marriage, they stayed at Johor Bahru.

The problem started six (6) months after their customary marriage on 27.01.2022 due to the mental instablility and sensitive attitude of the DW. DW always fought with PH and threaten to divorce PH and kill herself.

Further, DW alleged the breakdown of the marriage was also due to factors such as the PH’s violent temper, abusive behavior and habitual intoxication.

Sometime in October 2024, PH and DW were infected with influenza and admitted to the Gleneagles Hospital at Johor Bahru. DW was behaving unusual and always quarrel with PH. A psychiatric doctor had observed DW’s behavior via video recording and advised PH to bring her to see him. The video recorded DW sitting on AR’s bed and sobbing. The video also showed DW running into AR’s ward in a state of hysteria. DW was treated by the psychiatric doctor, Dr. Abdul Kadir bin Abu Bakar on the same day and she was given medicine Lamotrigine (anti-epilepsy drug) 25g and Menelata or Mitazapine (anti-depressants) 30mg (see Exhibit RV-1 of Enclosure 4).

DW has left the house on 05.12.2024 and moved to her parents’ house at Sungai Petani with AR without informing PH.

February 2025 was the last time PH saw their daughter, AR at the DW’s parents house. PH has tried to make arrangements to see AR, however DW who was of fickle mind, always block and unblock PH. It has caused difficulties and hardship for PH to visit AR.

On 09.10.2025, I have granted the ex-parte Order based on application filed by PH via Enclosure 23 where PH is given interim access of AR pending the disposal of Enclosure 1. PH is allowed to visit AR on alternate weekend, Saturday and Sunday from 12 noon till 4pm and PH will take AR from the DW’s house at 12 noon and return AR at DW’s house by 4pm. I then fixed the case for inter-parte hearing on 08.12.2025.

On 08.12.2025, after hearing both parties submissions and taking into account both parties’ interest and the child’s interest being paramount, I allowed Enclosure 23 with some modification to the said Order.

ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED The sole issue to be determined by this Court is whether the PH as a father of AR is allowed to continue having access to AR pending the disposal of Enclosure 1. S/N Clx1ug/pY0iAwfpLNkJQag COURT ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Whether the PH as a father of AR is allowed to continue having access to AR pending the disposal of Enclosure 1

The PH submitted he has rebutted the presumption of law under subsection 88(3) of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164] where PH has proven that DW is not suitable to take care of AR due to her mental instability and emotional distress. PH alleged DW has abused AR where he found some red marks on AR’s left arm when he visited AR on 02.11.2025.

DW on the hand, argued that presumption under subsection 88(2) of Act 164 was not rebutted by PH and it is better for AR who is two

years old to be with DW. DW has cited few authorites such as NAH v. HAH [2024] MLRHU 1018 and Teh Eng Kim v. Yew Peng Siong [1977] 1 MLRA 129 to support their arguments.

I refer to subsection 88(3) of Act 164 which state the followings: “There shall be a rebuttable presumption that it is for the good of a child below the age of seven years to be with his or her mother but in deciding whether that presumption applies to the facts of any particular case, the court shall have regard to the undesirability of disturbing the life of a child by changes of custody.”. [Emphasis added]

In the instant case, the PH has vide an application (Enclosure 16) to S/N Clx1ug/pY0iAwfpLNkJQag seek a Court Order to direct psychiatric doctor, Dr. Abdul Kadir bin Abu Bakar from Gleneagles Hospital, Johor Bahru to provide DW’s medical report based on the treatment given on 23.10.2024.

DW objected for the production of such Medical Report and argued that PH forced her to see the said psychiatric doctor. DW has refused to see any psychiatric doctor as she claimed she has no mental issues.

After hearing both parties’ argument and suggestion by DW’s solicitor that an assessment be conducted at the Government hospital to avoid any dispute, I directed the parties and AR to be assessed by the psychiatric doctor at Permai Hospital, Johor Bahru and a medical report to be prepared in order to assist the Court in deciding the issue disputed by the parties.

In determining Enclsoure 1, it is important to know the mental condition of DW before I could decide whether she is suitable to take care of AR based on few incidences raised by PH. Hence, for the time being, there is no evidence before me to say DW is not suitable to take care of AR and the PH has rebutted the presumption under subsection 88(3) of Act 164. However, I will decide whether interim access rights granted to PH on 09.10.2025 shall be continued.

I refer to subsection 5(1) of Guardianship and Infant Act 1961 [Act 351] which provides that— “5. (1) In relation to the custody or upbringing of an infant or the S/N Clx1ug/pY0iAwfpLNkJQag administration of any property belonging to or held in trust for an infant or the application of the income of any such property, a mother shall have the same rights and authority as the law allows to a father, and the rights and authority of mother and father shall be equal.

The mother of an infant shall have the like powers of applying to the Court in respect of any matter affecting the infant as are possessed by the father.” [Emphasis added]

Based on subsection 5(1) of Act 351, it is clear both parents have equal rights in managing the infant’s personal care and property.

In this regard, DW has denied PH’s rights to visit AR since February

DW seems to have a fickle mind when she keep changing her decision to allow PH to visit AR. After receiving the Court Order dated 09.10.2025, DW has suggested that AR be taken care by PH (see paragraph 4 of PH’s Additional Affidavit in Enclsoure 31).

DW did not file any Affidavit In Reply to contest Enclosure 23. Instead she has filed Enclosure 32 to amend the Court Order dated 09.10.2025 and Enclosure 38 to stay all the proceedings pending the disposal of the applications filed by DW.

It is pertinent to note DW has kept changing the solicitor who is representing her. The solicitor who appeared on 08.12.2025 is her fourth solicitor. Subsequent to the Order made on 08.12.2025, the S/N Clx1ug/pY0iAwfpLNkJQag fourth solicitor has discharged herself. DW has appointed the fifth solicitor to file an appeal against this Court’s decision. All her previous solicitors have applied to discharge themselves as DW was not co-operative and did not seem to listen to the professional legal advice they gave her.

During the hearing on 08.12.2025, DW’s solicitor has explained the terms of the Court Order dated 09.10.2025 (the “said Order”) to her. DW informed the Court that she disagreed with the terms in the said Order. She claimed that PH does not know how to look after AR and she has suggested supervised access be given to PH. DW claims that PH always quarrel and fight with her family members every time he comes and picks up AR at her house.

PH disagreed with the suggestion and informed that his mother is always with him when he visits AR. The access requested by him is only day access. PH requested the time period of access be extended as he travels from Johor Bahru on alternate weekends to visit AR at Sungai Petani, Kedah.

After considering the concern of the DW and interest of PH and AR, I allowed Enclosure 23 with some modification to the terms of the said Order as follows:

PH is given access to AR on alternate weekends, which is Saturday and Sunday at Sungai Petani, Kedah;

time of access is 11 am till 6pm on Saturday and 11am S/N Clx1ug/pY0iAwfpLNkJQag till 4pm on Sunday;

PH will pick up and return AR at Sungai Petani District Headquater Police Station for every time access;

PH is allowed to video call AR every two (2) days to speak to AR and if AR does not want to continue the conversation, PH shall end the video call immediately;

PH’s mother and close family of PH is allowed to be present during the access of AR;

PH shall inform DW if there is any change of the date of access;

the parties and AR are directed to be assessed by psychiatric doctor at Permai Hospital, Johor Bahru and medical report will be prepared and submitted to this Court for consideration; and

other terms in the said Order remain unchanged.

I have considered the request made by DW that supervised access be granted to PH. I find that there is no evidence before the Court that AR has resisted to see PH or PH has abused AR during the access. Unsupervised access will assist the child to strengthen her bonding with her father since PH will visit AR twice in a month and there is no overnight access requested by PH. In determining the time of the access, I have taken into account PH has to travel from S/N Clx1ug/pY0iAwfpLNkJQag Johor Bahru to Sungai Petani, Kedah to visit AR.

I am of the considered view PH as a father of AR has equal rights over AR’s personal case and his request is a fair request. Equally, AR should not be unfairly deprived from seeing her father. The terms in the Order in fact is in favour of the DW and it does not prejudice DW as AR continues to remain in her custody, care and control until the Court determine Enclsoure 1.

The other issues raised by the parties in the Affidavits and submissions such as custody, care and control and maintenance are pre-mature as those issues will be determined during the hearing of Enclosure 1.

Having considered the cause papers, Affidavits, submissions of the parties and the relevant legal principles, I am satisfied that the PH’s application is meritorious.

Accordingly, I allowed the PH’s application via Enclosure 23 with no order as to costs. Dated 23 March 2026. S/N Clx1ug/pY0iAwfpLNkJQag Signed by: Sgd. ……………….. Wong Mee Ling Judge High Court of Malaya Johor Bahru Johor Darul Ta’zim. Counsel/Solicitor For the RH: Ms. J. Chandrika and Ms. Jo-Anne Joseph Messrs Raman Velu, Meachery Jo-Anne & Co. Counsel/Solicitor For the AW: Mr. N. Ahilan