Sanjeet Kaur A/P Harpajan Singh v Varin Derjit Singh A/L Mehar Singh (WA-33-448-10/2020)

This was an application (“this Application”) in enclosure 232 by the Petitioner-Husband in Suit No: WA-33-569-10/2022 for Orders of Committal against the Respondent-Wife for breaching several terms of the Consent Judgment dated 22 July 2024.

The Petitioner and Respondent (collectively “the Parties”) had registered their marriage in June 2001 in California, United States, and thereafter had registered the same at the Consulate General of Malaysia in July 2002. There are three children of the marriage, born in 2001, 2002, and 2006 respectively.

The marriage did not withstand the test of time and in October 2020, the Respondent filed a petition for judicial separation vide Suit No: WA- 33-448-10/2020 (“the Judicial Separation Petition”). Two years later, in 27 July 2025 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 October 2022, the Petitioner filed a divorce petition vide Suit No: WA- 33-569-10/2022 (“the Divorce Petition”).

In July 2024, after lengthy negotiations, pursuant to both the Judicial Separation and Divorce Petitions, the Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Consent Judgment with the assistance of their respective solicitors.

Both the Petitioner and Respondent then confirmed upon oath in open Court that they understood and agreed to the terms of the Consent Judgment.

In November 2024, the Petitioner filed an application for leave to initiate committal proceedings against the Respondent for failure to comply with the following terms of the Consent Judgment: a) Failure to take any steps including but not limited to failing to forward the Memorandum of Transfer and all other necessary documents to the Petitioner’s solicitors and/or the Petitioner for execution to complete the transfer of one (1) unit of Condominium with postal address at Unit No. 2-25-6, Lebuh Tunku Kudin 3, 11700 Gelugor Pulau Pinang (hereinafter referred to as “Pearl Regency 1”) and a 3- storey property shoplot with postal address of B12-1, B-12-2, B-12-3, Lorong Bayan Indah 3, Bayan Lepas, Pulau Pinang (hereinafter referred to as “Bay Avenue”) from the Petitioner to the Respondent; 27 July 2025 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 b) Failure to indemnify and hold the Petitioner harmless for the monthly repayments of the loan attached to the existing charge registered under Pearl Regency 1; c) Failure to collect the Radhakrishna statue, Ganesha statue and two

Rumi paintings from the Petitioner; and d) Failure to forward evidence of withdrawal of the police reports lodged by the Respondent against the Petitioner. [7] Leave to initiate committal proceedings was granted, and in December 2024, the Petitioner filed this Application. Contentions, evaluation, and findings [8] Prior to the hearing of this Application, Counsel for the Respondent approached the Court with a request for the matter to be heard in chambers. She candidly admitted on behalf of the Respondent that there had indeed been a breach of the Consent Judgment. Counsel further appealed for a degree of leniency and proposed for the Petitioner to consider a more flexible approach to the terms of the Consent Judgment, in the hope that this would enable the Respondent to comply with them moving forward. [9] I appreciated the candour and constructive approach taken by the Respondent’s Counsel, who did not dispute the breach of the Consent Judgment but instead focused on seeking a practical resolution geared towards compliance. At the Counsel’s request, the matter proceeded 27 July 2025 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 in chambers without a full hearing on the merits of the Application, acknowledging that a more informal and flexible environment was better suited to fostering meaningful dialogue between the Parties in formulating terms for the Respondent to purge her contempt. [10] Over the course of six hours, I engaged closely with solicitors for both the Petitioner and Respondent, in an effort to find common ground. The focus of these discussions was not adversarial, but solutions-driven, which was aimed at determining whether the Respondent could purge her contempt by complying with a revised set of terms. These terms were deliberately framed to be more practical and realistic, taking into account the current circumstances of both Parties, while still upholding the essential elements of the original Consent Judgment. [11] At the heart of this exercise was the fundamental principle that the Court’s role was not merely to punish non-compliance, but to promote resolution and enforceability in a fair and just manner. The objective was, therefore, not to exact retribution, but to facilitate compliance in a way that maintained the dignity of the Court and preserved the integrity of the Consent Judgment, which represented not only the agreement of the Parties but the authority and endorsement of the Court itself. [12] However, I was compelled to place on record my observations regarding the Respondent's overall demeanour and conduct during the discussions. Despite the seriousness of the breach of the Consent Judgment and the considerable effort and time invested by the Court to provide her with a meaningful opportunity to make amends, the 27 July 2025 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 Respondent had failed to demonstrate even a modicum of contrition. This was not a case of inadvertent non-compliance or misunderstanding. The breach was clear, unambiguous, and undisputed. What remained was for the Respondent to acknowledge her failure and take concrete steps to remedy it. [13] Regrettably, rather than approaching the proceedings with humility or a willingness to take responsibility, the Respondent adopted a combative and defensive posture throughout the discussions. Her conduct gave the impression that she viewed the process not as an opportunity to purge her contempt and restore compliance, but as a platform to air personal grievances and deflect accountability. The Respondent neither expressed regret for her non-compliance nor extended any form of apology to the Court. [14] This lack of remorse was troubling, particularly in a setting where the Court had taken pains to create a conducive environment for resolution. Instead of engaging constructively, the Respondent appeared more focused on justifying her actions, shifting blame, and challenging the legitimacy of the very Consent Judgment to which she had previously agreed. Her posture throughout the chamber discussions underscored a fundamental unwillingness to take ownership of the breach, as evidenced by the following conduct: a) The Respondent had initially sought to shift blame to her former solicitors, alleging that she had never truly consented to the terms of the Consent Judgment. This assertion lacked merit. Where a party is 27 July 2025 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 represented by legal counsel and signs a consent order, the presumption is that the party has entered into the agreement freely, knowingly, and with full understanding of its legal consequences. In any event, the record clearly showed that the Respondent had affirmed her consent on oath before the solicitors, after they had carefully explained the terms to her. Courts are slow to entertain challenges to consent orders on the basis of duress or undue influence after the fact, especially when the allegations are raised without clear, compelling evidence. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome or a change of heart is not sufficient. The burden was on the Respondent alleging coercion to prove that her will was overborne to such an extent that her consent was not genuine. This, the Respondent had failed to do. b) Complicating matters further, the Respondent had discharged her first set of solicitors and was now entangled in a dispute with them over unpaid legal fees, which was a matter entirely separate from the issues before this Court but indicative of her broader unwillingness to take responsibility; c) Subsequently, the Respondent engaged a second law firm, Satvinder K & Associates, in January 2025. However, she later terminated their services and retained a third set of solicitors, Annesha Koshy & Associates, to handle this Application. This pattern of frequent changes of solicitors further undermined the stability and consistency of her legal position; 27 July 2025 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 d) Rather than engage constructively on the question of how best to comply with the Consent Judgment going forward, the Respondent had directed her energies toward attacking the Petitioner, claiming that she was now financially incapacitated and unable to comply with the Consent Judgment; and e) The Respondent’s frustration extended beyond legal matters, as she vented her resentment at the Petitioner for having moved on with his life, including remarrying and starting a new family — matters which, while personal, were irrelevant to the contempt proceedings at hand. [15] The Respondent’s conduct taken collectively reflected a clear lack of remorse or accountability on her part. Instead of seeking to rectify her non-compliance in good faith, the Respondent attempted to deflect responsibility and personalise the proceedings, thereby frustrating the conciliatory efforts made in chambers. [16] I had to agree with the Respondent’s own Counsel that she had, in fact, breached the terms of Consent Judgment and hence, I found her to be in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, she was merely reprimanded, with no other sanction imposed. The Respondent was then instructed to purge her contempt by complying with the following terms:

That Respondent-Wife, Sanjeet Kaur A/P Harpajan Singh, shall take the following steps in order to purge her contempt: 27 July 2025 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 A. The Respondent-Wife and/or Petitioner-Husband/Applicant shall find a buyer for Pearl Regency 1, as follows: i) Either Party in paragraph (4) A above, who is in receipt of an offer to purchase Pearl Regency 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Initiating Party”) shall forward the said offer to purchase Pearl Regency 1 to the other Party; ii) Upon transmission of the said offer in writing to the other Party, the other Party shall have seven (7) days to communicate a fully executed letter of offer to purchase Pearl Regency 1 at a higher purchase price to the Initiating Party; In such a case as paragraph (4) A (ii) above, the Parties shall proceed to accept the higher offer to purchase Pearl Regency 1 and shall do and/or cause to be done all such things as procedurally necessary to effect the sale of Pearl Regency 1; iii) In the event that the Initiating Party does not receive a response as stated in paragraph (4) A (ii) above from the other Party within seven

days, the Initiating Party shall be entitled to accept the said offer to purchase Pearl Regency 1; and

In such a case, as paragraph (4) A (iii) above, the Parties shall proceed to accept the said offer to purchase Pearl Regency 1 and shall do and/or cause to be done all such things as procedurally necessary to effect the sale of Pearl Regency 1. B. That the Respondent-Wife and/or Petitioner-Husband/Applicant ensures that a Sale and Purchase Agreement in respect of Pearl Regency 1 is executed by all parties thereto on/before 31.12.2025; C. All the proceeds from the sale of Pearl Regency 1 shall be used to indemnify and hold the Petitioner-Husband/Applicant harmless for the payments made by the Petitioner-Husband/Applicant for all costs incurred by him in respect of Pearl Regency 1, including but not limited to payments in respect of the loan attached to Pearl Regency 1, from 22.7.2024 until the date of receipt of the full proceeds of the 27 July 2025 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 sale of Pearl Regency 1 by the Petitioner-Husband/Applicant’s solicitors; D. Subsequently, after the deduction of all costs and sums as stated in paragraph (4) C, the Petitioner-Husband/Applicant’s solicitor shall transfer the balance thereof (if any) to the Respondent-Wife’s solicitors, Annesha Koshy & Associates; E. The Respondent-Wife to obtain the original titles for the property known as Bay Avenue and complete the transfer of the Petitioner-Husband/Applicant’s half-share in the Property known as Bay Avenue to the Respondent-Wife, by 31.12.2025; and F. In the event the Respondent-Wife fails to obtain the original titles of Bay Avenue and complete the transfer of Bay Avenue as stated in paragraph (4) E above, the Respondent-Wife shall be committed to prison forthwith. 5) This Order shall be endorsed with a penal notice under O.45, r.7(4) Rules of Court 2012 to ensure compliance by any or all parties concerned herein. INDORSEMENT PURSUANT TO ORDER 45 RULE 7(4) RULES OF COURT 2012 If any and/or all parties abovenamed in this Order neglect to obey this order according to the time limits stated herein, that party may be liable to the process of execution for the purposes of compelling them to obey the same. Conclusion [17] In the final analysis, it was evident that the Respondent had not complied with the terms of the Consent Judgment. This fact was not in dispute. Indeed, Counsel for the Respondent did not seek to challenge the breach itself, but instead appealed to the Court for some latitude in the enforcement of the Consent Judgment, requesting that the terms 27 July 2025 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 12 be made sufficiently flexible to enable the Respondent to rectify her non-compliance. [18] Accordingly, in view of the clear and admitted breach, I had no choice but to allow the present Application. An order was, therefore, granted with costs in favour of the Petitioner. The Respondent was formally reprimanded for her failure to comply with the Consent Judgment. However, taking into consideration the representations made by Counsel for the Respondent, as well as the objective of facilitating compliance rather than punishing the Respondent, I refrained from imposing any punitive sanction. Instead, a revised set of terms was drawn up and recorded, with the intention of enabling the Respondent to purge her contempt in a practical and achievable manner. This approach, in my view, struck a balance between upholding the dignity of the Court and affording the Respondent an opportunity to rectify her breach in good faith. Dated: 27 July 2025 SIGNED …………………………………………. (EVROL MARIETTE PETERS) Judge 27 July 2025 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 High Court, Kuala Lumpur Counsel: