Faiza Tamby Chik J:

[1] The three main issues for consideration are as follows:

(a) Whether the dissolution of marriage should be granted on the alleged ground of adultery as in the petition by the petitioner or dissolution of marriage should be granted on the ground of two years separation as in the respondent's cross petition;

(b) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim in the alleged property purchased prior to the marriage which the petitioner alleged is matrimonial property namely the property known as No: 52, Jalan 9/101 Desa Aman, Jalan Cheras, 56100 Kuala Lumpur (the 'Desa Aman Property'); and

(c) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a claim for maintenance for herself.

[2] The following facts are not in dispute, that:

(a) The petitioner and the respondent registered their marriage at 'Persatuan Perniagaan Tionghua Johor' in 24 March 1984;

(b) there are no children born to their union;

(c) both the respondent and the petitioner were gainfully employed throughout the subsistence of the marriage;

(d) the respondent and the petitioner, before the separation lived in the property known asNo: 52, Jalan 9/101 Desa Aman, Jalan Cheras, 56100 Kuala Lumpur (Desa Aman Property) and thereafter the separation on 14 March 1994 the petitioner continues to live at the Desa Aman Property until today and the respondent lives elsewhere;

(e) the Desa Aman Property was purchased and paid for by the respondent before the marriage and the Desa Aman Property is registered under the respondent's sole name;

(f) the property known as at 14-1-12 (Lot K0115) Jalan 2/91-A Taman Shamelin Perkasa, 56100 Cheras, Kuala Lumpur ('the Apartment) was purchased in 1992 (after the marriage) and registered in the sole name of the petitioner but payments were made by the respondent as stated in the respondent's affidavit at paras 8 to 12 of encl 84;

(g) Both parties agree that the marriage has broken down irretrievably based on the ground that parties have lived apart for two years immediately preceding the cross petition being filed by the respondent (see para 13 of petitioner's reply at encl 60) where else the ground of alleged adultery is disputed by the respondent.

First Issue

Dissolution Of Marriage Is Based On The Petitioner's Petition Or The respondent's Cross Petition

[3] The petitioner had alleged that the marriage has irretrievably broken down as a result of the respondent's alleged adultery with the co-respondent pursuant to s 54(1)(a) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent has vehemently denied this allegation and to date this allegation by the petitioner remains unproven. However, the respondent had stated in his cross petition that the marriage has broken down irretrievably as both parties have lived apart for two years immediately proceeding the filing of the cross petition under s 54(1)(d) of the Act. This fact of the marriage having broken down due to the parties living apart for two years has been admitted by the petitioner in her reply to the respondent's cross petition at para 13 encl 60. Under s 53 of the Act, the court is required to look or enquire into the facts alleged in the petition and/or the cross petition which cause or led to the breakdown of the marriage. The court thereafter, if satisfied that the circumstances make it just and reasonable to do so, should then make a decree for the dissolution of the marriage having regard to the alleged facts as provided in s 54 of the Act. In the present petition before me both the petitioner in her petition and her reply to the cross petition (encl 83 and encl 60 respectively) and the respondent in his cross petition (encl 56), are in agreement that the marriage has broken down irretrievably on two years separation, namely both parties have lived apart for two years as provided under s 54(1)(d) of the Act. The respondent in his cross petition stated the reason of the breakdown of the marriage is due to the petitioner and responden