The division of matrimonial assets under s 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act must adhere to statutory consideration of contributions, distinguishing between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property.

[1] The appellant/petitioner in this appeal, appeals against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner limited to three grounds as per the submission. The three grounds are as follows:

(i) Division of Matrimonial Assets;

(ii) Access Right to the Child; and

(iii) Adultery Claim Against the 2nd respondent.

[2] The orders made by the High Court inter alia read as follows:

"(a) Hak kawalan, penjagaan dan pemeliharan Leo Oh Qin Yau (No Surat Beranak: CA 73965) diberikan kepada responden pertama dengan akses munasabah kepada Pempetisyen untuk melawat anak tersebut di tempat awam dan akses tersebut akan dan perlu di bawah pengawasan responden pertama;

(b) Hartanah A iaitu sebuah rumah dua tingkat yang mempunyai alamat No 2, Jalan Setia Perdana U13/25C, Ayur Prima, Setia Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan tersebut dijual pada harga pasaran dan hasil jualan Hartanah A dibahagikan antara responden pertama dan Pempetisyen dalam nisbah 80% kepada responden pertama dan 20% kepada Pempetisyen masing- masing;

(c) Pempetisyen memindahmilik setengah (1/2) bahagian Hartanah B iaitu sebuah rumah "semi-detached" yang mempunyai alamat di No 8, Jalan Menteri Ul/85, Temasya Glenmarie, Selangor Darul Ehsan tersebut yang dipegang olehnya kepada responden pertama dan menandatangani kesemua dokumen-dokumen pindahmilik dan dokumen samping dalam masa 30 hari daripada tarikh perintah ini dimana kos untuk pindahmilik akan ditanggung oleh responden pertama;

(d) Responden pertama membayar balik wang sejumlah RM28,080.00 yang telah dibayar oleh Pempetisyen untuk Hartanah C iaitu rumah perkahwinan yang mempunyai alamat di No 13, Jalan Cecawi 6/31 A, Kota Damansara, 47810 Petaling Jaya, Selangor dalam tempoh 60 hari dari tarikh perintah ini dan Pempetisyen memindahmilik setengah (1/2) bahagian yang dipegang olehnya kepada responden pertama dalam tempoh 30 hari setelah pembayaran penuh dibayar oleh responden pertama kepada Pempetisyen dan kos pindahmilik 1/2 bahagian yang dipegang oleh Pempetisyen ditanggung oleh pihak secara bersama. Pempetisyen juga diperintahkan mengosongkan Hartanah C dalam tempoh 60 hari dari tarikh perintah ini;

(e) Wang berjumlah RM50,000.00 yang telah dimasukkan ke dalam simpanan deposit tetap Maybank di bawah nama Pempetisyen dan responden pertama bersama dengan nombor akaun: 212754100216 adalah kepunyaan kepada responden pertama sepenuhnya;

(f) Tuntutan Pempetisyen di perenggan (f) Petisyen Perceraian ditolak."

[3] The brief facts of the case as summarised before us and to save courts time, we repeat the same. It reads as follows:

"Brief Facts

1. The Petitioner (husband) and the 1st respondent (wife) were married on 30 May 2004. They have one child named Leo Oh Qin Yao, born on 20 July 2008 and currently 8 years old. The child is currently with the 1st respondent.

2. They had acquired one matrimonial property at Kota Damansara, Petaling Jaya (Property C). The Petitioner owned his own business known as IDM Creative Marketing Sdn Bhd with a monthly salary of RM6,000.00.

3. The 1st respondent is the Group General Manager of Compugates Holding Berhad. The 2nd respondent is the Managing Director of Compugates Holding Berhad and is the boss of the 1st respondent.

4. The marriage broke down around 2010 since the Petitioner alleged that the 1st respondent had committed adultery with the 2nd respondent.

5. The Petitioner and 1st respondent referred the dispute to the Marriage Tribunal on 21 January 13 and it was concluded that the marriage could not be reconciled and a certificate dated 13 May 13 was issued to this effect.

6. In September 2013, the 1st respondent moved out from the matrimonial house with her son, in the presence of the Petitioner, Petitioner's brother and wife, and the 1st respondent's sister.

7. During