Adultery in matrimonial law can be proven through strong circumstantial evidence, with the burden of proof residing on the party alleging it, established beyond reasonable doubt as per statutory requirements.

[1] The petitioner was lawfully married to the respondent at on 21 October 1983. They cohabited at No 58-H, Kg Empat off Jalan Ong Kim Wee, 75300 Melaka ('the matrimonial home'). After her marriage has been irretrievably broken down, the petitioner filed for, inter alia, divorce under ss 53 and 54(1)(d) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act ('the Act'). She also sued the co-respondent for damages over alleged adultery, under ss 58 and 59 of the .

[2] In her petition, besides divorce, the petitioner had sought ancillary reliefs namely:

(a) that the petitioner be paid maintenance RM2,000 a month for 15 years amounting to RM360,000 or alump sum payment of RM250,000;

(b) arrears of maintenance at the rate of RM2,000 per month for 108 months from 28 July 2003-28 July2012 amounting to RM216,000;

(c) RM175,000 which is half share of matrimonial home No 58H, Jalan Ong Kim Wee, Melaka;

(d) RM500,000 as lump sum payment as division of matrimonial properties;

(e) the co-respondent be condemned under s 58(2) of the Act;

(f) interest at the rate of 8% on all sums claimed until full realisation; and

(g) costs of proceedings RM75,000.

[3] The claim for maintenance namely prayers 13(2)-(5) in the petition for the daughter Teo Shi Wei, who was a minor at the time of filing this proceedings was abandoned by the petitioner mid-way through the trial because she had attained the age of majority before the conclusion of the trial.

[4] The respondent however disputed the petitioner's other claims and he filed counterclaims against the petitioner for:

(a) RM182,500 as the respondent's purported loan to the petitioner;

(b) RM368,000 for the sale of Kluang Rubber Company shares; and

(c) half share of three storey shop lot bought by petitioner at Lot 370 Kawasan Bandar XXXIX, Taman Melaka Raya, Melaka Tengah, Melaka.

[5] Both the petitioner and respondent agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. The petitioner obtained divorce from the respondent when the court on 30 December 2010 granted decree nisi and the case has since been adjourned for trial for hearing of the petitioner's other claims and the respondent's counterclaims.

[6] From the date of filing of the petition, until the ultimate conclusion of this case, the trial has been punctuated by numerous interlocutory applications. This trial has taken about 17 of full hearings to complete, hence this lengthyjudgment.

Issues To Be Tried

[7] The parties framed the following as issues to be tried ('ikatan G'):

(a) whether the respondent has committed adultery with the co-respondent, and whether petitioner is entitled to an order of divorce on the ground of respondents have committed adultery with the co-respondent;

(b) whether Yau Jia Ying also known as Jasmine Yau born on 16 January 2000 and Yau Jia Han born 4 August 2002 are two illegitimate children born to respondent with the co-respondent;

(c) whether the co-respondent bersama may be condemned in damages for committing adultery with the respondent;

(d) whether the petitioner is entitled to claim mainternance from the respondent from the date of filing this petition until the petitioner remarries;

(e) whether the sum of RM500,000 forming the marital assets acquired by the petitioner and the respondent during the time of their marriage, throu