Peh Swee Chin J

The petitioner/wife was granted a decree nisi on August 24, 1982 and took out the present notice of application for ancillary relief on October 20, 1982 for herself and on behalf of her two minor children, one aged 17 and the other 7. Upon hearing the said notice, certain orders were made on December 11, 1982 and from these orders of this Court the petitioner/wife has now appealed.

The notice had asked for an order that (1) the sale of the matrimonial home be set aside; (2) that the petitioner be granted 1/2 share of the said home; (3) alternately that she be granted 1/2 share of the prodeeds of sale of the said home, the sale price being $191,000/-; (4) that she be paid a lump sum in lieu of all her future claims for maintenance; (5) alternatively she be granted $1,000/- per mensem as maintenance; (6) that each of her two minor children be paid $400/- each per mensem and a further sum of $40,000/- out of the said proceeds of sale to be held in trust on the children's behalf; and (7) costs.

From the only affidavit of the petitioner filed herein, she deposed that she was married to the respondent for 26 years before the breakup of the marriage. She further deposed that she had "contributed" to their house, (the original matrimonial home in Taman Seputeh, Kuala Lumpur), by her "caring and rearing the children at home" and "other general duties attendant" to her "housewifely" duty. These allegations, it will be seen, formed the basis of her claim to a share of the house under section 76 or the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act, 1976. This house shall be hereafter referred to for convenience rather than for precision, as the matrimonial home. She admitted that the matrimonial home was bought by the respondent and the family moved into it in 1969. She then told of the fights and quarrels from 1975 onwards when the respondent began to cohabit with the co-respondent. Respondent neglected his work it was said, and his business as a contractor folded up some time in 1980. The respondent shifted the whole family to another house where the family stayed upstairs and carried on the business of a coffee shop downstairs, the purpose of such shifting being to let out the matrimonial home to help pay family expenses. Apparently peace and happiness appeared to elude the family with the respondent finally leaving the new address to live with the co-respondent aforesaid. While denying that the respondent was jobless, the petitioner told of the rough time, earning a living for herself and the minor children. On the date of hearing of this application, learned counsel for the petitioner very correctly conceded that the petitioner had been earning between $300/- and $400/- per month as the owner of a mee stall. The matrimonial home, it appeared, had been sold by the respondent for a total sum of $191,000/- of which $41,000/- was paid by the purchaser to the respondent as deposit, leaving a balance of $150,000/- the payment of which had been held up due to these proceedings. She further alleged that the respondent had been gainfully employed at a monthly salary of $1,700/- by one D D C Construction Sdn. Bhd., Pudu, Kuala Lumpur.

The respondent, in his affidavit in reply, made certain allegations, about some alleged impropriety between the petitioner and one Ah Meng and that he was eventually forced to leave in January, 1981. The cause of his leaving the new address would appear to be relevant as it will be seen that the learned counsel for the petitioner would be claiming past maintenance to take effect from January or February, 1981 when the alleged neglect to maintain first occurred. He alleged that, on stopping his business, he sold what was left of his business assets and from such proceeds gave $25,000/- to the petitioner to start the coffee shop and to rent the new family home. This was denied by the petitioner who said that elder son and daughter had contributed $5,000/- and the coffee shop was started in partnership with th