Applications for ancillary relief in matrimonial proceedings must comply with specific procedural rules, or they risk dismissal regardless of substantive merits.

[1]This is an appeal by the petitioner wife ("the PW") in respect of my decision made on 4 April 2012 regarding encl 7.

Enclosure 7

[2]Enclosure 7 is an application by the PW filed by way of a Summons in Chambers ("the application") forinter alia, the following interim orders pending the final disposal of the petition for Judicial Separation ("the petition") in encl 1:

"(a) That the respondent be ordered to pay to the petitioner interim maintenance of RM13,990.00 per month, payable into the petitioner's account on or before 7th day of each month;

(b) That the respondent be ordered to pay the petitioner, within 14 days from the date of this order, the arrears of the interim maintenance commencing from 20 May 2009 until the date of this order;

(c) That the respondent by himself, his agents or servants or otherwise be restrained until further order from transferring, disposing off or parting with in any manner the matrimonial assets or a part thereof, including but not limited to those mentioned in paras 27-31 of the affidavit in support herein, within and outside the jurisdiction of this court or to whatsoever person;

(d) An order that any transfer, disposal or parting of the petitioner's share in the matrimonial assets, within three years from the date hereof, be set aside;

(e) That the respondent be ordered to continue paying the monthly car installments for the Nissan Grand Livina 1.5, registration no WSC 8058, pending the disposal of the proceedings herein;

(f) That the respondent be ordered to pay costs of this application; and

(g) Such further and other relief as this Honourable court deems fit and just."

Background Facts

[3]The PW was lawfully married to the respondent husband ("the RH") on 20 November 1982. There are no children from the marriage.

[4]After the marriage, the PW and the RH cohabited at various addresses (including residing in New Zealand) and lastly at No AT18-1, Block C, Prima 16, Chapter 2, Seksyen 16, Petaling Jaya, Selangor ("the matrimonial home"). The PW left the matrimonial home on 20 May 2009. Since then, the parties have been living separately.

[5]The PW worked with Lembaga Penduduk dan Pembangunan Keluarga Negara ("LPPKN") for 24 years. She took early retirement in October 2003 when she was earning a gross salary of RM1,614 per month. Since her retirement she was a housewife except from January 2004 to April 2004 when she worked as a pre-school teacher. She started working again as a pre-school teacher from mid-September 2010 until now in order to support herself.

[6]The respondent runs his own business. He is the managing director of a company, Trident Plus Sdn Bhd ("Trident Plus"), which he set up in 2002. This company acts as an agent or go-between for two Japanese companies, Sumitomo Electric Industries Japan and Japan Power Systems, earning commissions.

Decision

[7]I heard the application on 27 March 2012 and 4 April 2012. After considering the application and affidavits, and the submissions and authorities of both parties, I dismissed the application, with liberty to file afresh. I further ordered that the PW pays the RH costs of RM500 within 10 days from the date of the order.

Grounds For My Decision:

(A) Wrong Mode Of Commencement

[8]Counsel for the RH raised the substantive issue regarding the wrong mode of commencement by the PW for this application. According to Ms YN Foo, the corr