Bahawa kegagalan Responden, Wong Wee Kok untuk membayar nafkah tertunggak bagi anak-anak perkahwinan tersebut sebanyak SGD$120, 752.14 tersebut pada/atau sebelum 31.12.2019, Responden, Wong Wee Kok akan dikomitkan ke penjara di Kluang sehingga Responden, Wong Wee Kok menjelaskan nafkah tertunggak bagi anak-anak tersebut secara sepenuhnya." [4] At the outset, this Court finds that there is no ambiguity in the Committal Order which, among others, stipulates that the respondent husband has to make full payment of SGD120,752.14 being arrears for the child maintenance (as at June 2019) on or before 30.12.2019. [5] From the evidence, it is not disputed that the respondent husband had failed to make full payment of such arrears within the specified date as ordered by this Court. Instead, on 30.12.2019, being the last date given, the respondent husband only paid a sum of SGD65,000.00, hence leaving an outstanding balance of SGD55,752.14 for the said arrears. [6] In this regard, this Court agrees with the petitioner wife’s submission that such payment was outrightly not in accordance with the order by this Court as per the Committal Order, hence a clear in defiance of the said order on part of the respondent husband. [7] Next, although there were sporadic payments made by the respondent husband after 30.12.2019 in relation to the child maintenance, this Court further agrees with the petitioner wife’s submission that such payments cannot be taken to account for the arrears since the Committal Order also imposes specific obligation to the respondent husband to make continuous monthly payments for the child maintenance as decreed in the Divorce Judgment, i.e. SGD3,300.00 per month (please see the Divorce Judgment in Enc. 21). [8] Thus on a proper reading of the Committal Order, this Court has to reject the respondent husband’s contention that when he made payment of SGD41,872.14 on 16.12.2021 purportedly as full settlement for the arrears of the child maintenance, the respondent husband had actually purged the contempt and therefore ought to be released from the arrest warrant. [9] This Court is firmly of the view that the terms in the Committal Order must not be read in isolation so as to give the Committal Order its rightful effect. To hold otherwise as suggested by the respondent husband, would make no meaning on the duty imposes against the respondent husband to pay monthly maintenance for the children as agreed in the Divorce Judgment. Worst still, it may even be a mockery to the Committal Order and the Divorce Judgment if the respondent husband is allowed to make payment for the child maintenance according to his own phase or choice of amount as evidenced from the respondent husband’s past payments as tabulated in Enc. 85 (not disputed by the respondent husband). Conclusion [10] Based on the above grounds, being essentially a straight forward case, Enc. 26 is dismissed with costs. Dated: 27th November 2023 …………………………………………. (NOOR HISHAM BIN ISMAIL) Judicial Commissioner High Court, Johor Bahru Counsels for Petitioner Ms Michele Kaur together with Mr Tee Yee Man Messrs Sun & Michele Kuala Lumpur Counsels for Respondent Mr Selvam Shanmugam together with Ms M. Selvamary Messrs Selvam Shanmugam & Partners Kuala Lumpur