Mahadev Shankar JCA:

[1] The appellant (the husband) married the respondent (the wife) in 1976 according to Chinese rites. He was then a reporter with the New Straits Times Group attached to the Berita Harian. She was a telephone operator in Nanyang Siang Pau. He was a divorcee with two sons from his first marriage. They were then aged 6 and 5 years respectively. He was then 34 years old. She was 28.

[2] The parties then cohabited with his mother at 24, Jalan 20/7, Petaling Jaya, his two sons, his brother and his brother's wife. A daughter was born to them in February 1977. In November that year the husband and wife went through a Civil Marriage at the Marriage Registry in Petaling Jaya. In February 1980 they had a second daughter.

[3] In 1982 the husband, wife and two daughters moved to the ground floor of No 8, Jalan 20/7, Petaling Jaya. The upstairs which had a separate entrance was then occupied by a tenant. At or about the time the couple moved in with their two daughters the mother transferred her half share in that house to the husband who thus became its sole owner. This house became the matrimonial home.

[4] In 1989 the mother died. The two sons, now 19 and 18 respectively came to live in the matrimonial home. The marriage came under strain later that year. In early 1990, the tenant moved out. The husband and his two sons moved upstairs. The wife remained with her two daughters downstairs. Thereafter the husband ceased to pay maintenance.

[5] So the wife commenced proceedings which eventually ended with an order on 26 August 1991 in the Magistrate's Court that he pay RM900 per month for his wife and two daughters. She filed a unilateral petition for divorce in October 1992 based on their having lived apart for more than two years. The husband contested all her prayers except one namely that the marriage be dissolved.

[6] On 23 September 1993, a decree nisi was made by mutual consent under s 52 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (the Act), providing that unless sufficient cause was shown to the Court within three months from the making thereof decree be made absolute and that "the trial with reference to the division of the assets between the petitioner and the respondent be adjourned to a date to be fixed."

[7] Long after the three months had lapsed the trial was held on 7 April, 30 June and 8 August 1994, when the husband and wife gave evidence and were cross-examined. Final submissions followed on 26 September 1994. The trial Judge reserved judgment. On 21 November 1994 she directed that:

(i) the husband pay, RM1,000 per month for both children, their medical bills, and their education up to tertiary first degree;

(ii) one-third of the value of the matrimonial home valued at RM175,000 be given to the wife;

(iii) no monthly payments be made as maintenance to the wife;

(iv) one-third of the husband's EPF as at 31 December 1993 (RM260,627.06) be paid to the wife as and when it is paid to the husband according to law.

[8] Against this the husband has appealed to us. He sought to urge upon us that the Judge should not have ordered any maintenance at all for each of the two daughters beyond their eighteenth birthday, that the wife should not have been given any share whatsoever of the matrimonial home and that as far as the EPF was concerned, only that part of the husband's EPF which had accrued from contributions made by him from his marriage up to the date of his separation should have been aggregated with the wife's EPF and a third of this figure fixed as her share of their combined EPF.

[9] This line of argument, which is not without some ingenuity, raises important issues which have to be dealt with in some depth.

[10] Procedures for pre-trial discovery are provided by rr 24 and 25 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 (the Rules) which makes the RHC O 24 r 12 (discovery and inspection of documents) and O 26 r 1 (discovery by interrogatories) applicable to defended causes begun by petition. N