Justice Evrol Mariette Peters said the man’s excuse of financial incapacity and his claim of non-wilful non-compliance with court orders was untenable.
“The petitioner-husband had not made any effort to pay child maintenance since 2013 or to seek a variation of the court orders.
“His apparent disregard for the orders suggested a lack of concern not only for the legal mandates but, more importantly, for the well-being of the children, whose welfare was compromised due to his wilful refusal,” she said in a recent judgment.
The judge said financial situations were inherently variable and may fluctuate based on job status, economic conditions or personal choices.
Peters said financial difficulties, while challenging, are often temporary and may be managed through various means, such as careful budgeting, seeking additional employment, or accessing community resources and social services.
In contrast, she said a parent’s responsibility to care and provide for their children remains constant, regardless of their financial situation.
“Using financial hardship as an excuse to neglect a child’s needs ignores the reality that such challenges should be addressed rather than used as a justification for failing to meet parental responsibilities,” she added.
Peters said the husband, anonymised as KOH, repeatedly cited financial hardship throughout the proceedings, claiming he earned a basic salary of only about RM2,800 per month.
However, his “basic monthly expenditure”, which amounted to RM13,638.68, contradicted his claims of poverty and undermined his argument of financial incapacity.
The facts of the case revealed the husband and wife, identified as POH, divorced in 2012 with an agreement he would pay RM2,000 per month in child maintenance.
Despite this, KOH had refused to make payments since 2013, leaving his ex-wife to shoulder all financial responsibility for the two children.
In August 2021, POH filed an application to increase the child maintenance payable from RM2,000 to RM8,000 based on their current medical conditions.
Two months later, the court approved the variation and ordered her former husband to pay RM74,000 in maintenance arrears for the period from July 2018 to July 2021, pursuant to the August 2012 order.
KOH still refused to make payments under the two court orders which now totalled RM 266,825.49, claiming financial hardship.
In November 2023, the ex-wife initiated committal proceedings against KOH for his failure to pay the sums as ordered by the court.
Peters found KOH in contempt of court and ordered the outstanding amount to be paid within three months from the date of her decision. Failure to do so will result in imprisonment until the contempt is purged.