Matrimonial assets acquired before marriage are not subject to division post-divorce; only those acquired during the marriage by joint efforts are included.

[1] This is a single divorce petition (encl 1) filed by the petitioner husband ("PH") against the respondent wife ("RW"), seeking an order for the dissolution of their marriage, custody, care and control of the children of the marriage be given to RW, PH be given reasonable access and other prayers.

[2] On 6 October 2017 (hearing date), parties (in the presence of their respective counsels) have amicably agreed to part of the prayers to which a consent order was entered between them. The terms of the consent order were (signed by PH and RW) marked as encl 58.

[3] The relevant cause papers and written submissions, are as follows:

(1) PH filed amended petition on 15 July 2016 (encl 18);

(2) RW's reply to the amended petition and cross petition filed on 26 August 2016 (encl 20);

(3) RW's reply to the amended petition and cross petition filed on 26 August 2016 (encl 21);

(4) PH's reply to the cross petition dated 2 March 2016 (encl 22);

(5) RW's reply to the reply for cross petition dated 4 October 2016 (encl 23);

(6) RW's further reply to the reply for cross petition filed 9 December 2016 (encl 26);

(7) RW's further reply to the reply for cross petition filed 9 December 2016 (encl 27);

(8) PH's further reply to the reply for cross petition filed 14 December 2016 (encl 28);

(9) RW's further reply to the reply for cross petition filed 16 December 2016 (encl 29);

(10) Submission by the learned counsel for RW (encl 58);

(11) Submission by the learned counsel for PH (encls 61 and 62);

(12) Submission in reply by the learned counsel for RW (encl 63);

(13) Ikatan Dokumen tambahan Pempetisyen 2 & 3 (encl 53 & 60, respectively), filed on 24 October 2017, which enclosed bills and two statutory declarations (in relation to the said property) by PH and his father.

[4] Upon perusing the cause papers filed and written submissions by the learned counsel, on 3 November 2017, I find RW had failed to prove her case on balance of probabilities and I dismissed her claim/counterclaim with no order as to cost. Dissatisfied, RW is now appealing against part of the said decision and my reasons are as follows:

Agreed Facts

[5] PH and RW were married on 4 November 2009 at the Persatuan Penganut Dewa Sri Balasubramaniam, Johor Bahru, Johor ("the said marriage") and are blessed with two children ie Yogashree Nair a/p Vikkaram (5+ years old) and Jinosan a/l Vikkaram (4+ years old) ("the said children"). They resided at No 4 Ground Flat, Blok A Jalan Seri Cheras 6, Taman Seri Cheras Batu 10, Batu 9, Cheras ("the said house"). The house which RW is claiming as the matrimonial asset bears the address as No 63, Jalan 2, Taman Aik Ann, 43500 Semenyih, Kajang ("the said property").

[6] Parties agreed to submit on the issues as stated in RW's reply to the petition at para 7.6, 7.7 and 7.12 and RW's counterclaim at para 1.1, 1.2 and 1.7 (encl 27) which for ease of reference I reproduced as follows:

"Reply to the petition

7.6 Responden juga memohon supaya Pempetisyen menamakan kedua-dua anaknya hasil perkahwinan ini sebagai pewaris untuk 1/3 bahagian masing- masing daripada sumbangan Caruman Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja Pempetisyen dan sekiranya Pempetisyen membuat sebarang pengeluaran melalui akaun ini pada bila-bila masa dari tarikh peintah Mahkamah ini samada atas alasan Pempetisyen telah mencapai umur 50 atau 55 tahun dan/ atau apa-apa alasan lain maka kedua-dua anak hasil perkahwinan ini juga harus diberikan 1/3 bahagian masing-masing daripada jumlah pengeluaran tersebut.

7.7 Responden juga memohon supaya Pempetisyen menamakan kedua-dua anaknya hasil perkahwinan ini sebagai pewaris untuk 1/3 bahagian masing- masing terhadap rumah Pempetisyen yang mempunyai alamat di No 63, Jalan 2 Taman Aik Ann, 43500 Semenyih Kajang.

7.1