Tee Ah Sing JC

At the commencement of the hearing of this appeal against the decision of the learned magistrate whereby she ordered the appellant/respondent to pay maintenance of RM3,000 per month, the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant raised the following preliminary objections.

The learned counsel for the respondent/applicant submitted that the notice of appeal was served upon the respondent/applicant out of time by five days in non-compliance with O 49 r 2(6) of the Subordinate Courts Rules 1980 ('the SCR'). Secondly he submitted that the memorandum of appeal was filed one day after the expiry period and served 29 days after the expiry date in non-compliance with O 55 r 2(1) and (2) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ('the RHC'). Thirdly he submitted that the record of appeal was not filed within six weeks as provided for under O 49 r 3A(3) and (4) of the SCR. It was thus submitted that the appeal should be dismissed.

The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent conceded that they were four days late in serving the notice of appeal on the respondent/applicant. He submitted that they filed the memorandum of appeal in time. He however conceded that they were late i