JUDGMENT

Faiza Tamby Chik J:

The parties were married on 2 July 1977, and cohabited at the petitioner's family home at 151, Jalan Krian, Taman Rainbow, Batu 4, Jalan Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur. There are two children of the marriage: Puneet Nandrajog a/l Shudesh Kumar (born on 14 November 1979 and now 24 1/2); and Caithrie Devi Nandrajog a/p Shudesh Kumar (born on 26 January 1982 and now 22 1/2). The wife-respondent had left the shared residence on 21 September 1990. She had obtained an order for custody of the children on 16 September 1991, in Originating Summons No. S5-24-1287 of 1990. She had then proceeded to file an application for maintenance for herself and the children vide Kuala Lumpur Magistrate's Court Maintenance Application No. 91-13-1991. The consent order is dated 30 December 1991 and ordered the petitioner-husband to pay the respondent-wife a monthly sum of RM1,200 as maintenance for her and the two children of the marriage. Since, then the parties had not resumed cohabitation. The respondent-wife made an application on 5 January 2001 to vary that order, and that application resulted in the court ordering the petitioner-husband to pay the same sum of RM1,200 per month, and continue paying for the education expenses for the children. That order was made on 11 January 2002. By the time the petition was filed, they had lived apart for 11 1/2 years; it is now close to 14 years.

The petitioner-husband contends that the marriage broke down because of the unreasonable behaviour of the respondent-wife. The particulars are set out in para. 11 of the petition. The petitioner contends that the respondent-wife is a suspicious person, and had even physically attacked him. He says she was abusive and rude, even to his father. She wanted the petitioner to move out of his family's residence, which he refused to do so, and this led to frequent quarrels between the parties, eventually leading to their separation. The petitioner also states that the parties had lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition (in fact a period of 11 1/2 years, since the respondent-wife left the shared residence in 1990). The fact of separation is not denied by the respondent-wife. It is therefore open to this court to grant the decree nisi on that ground alone.

The respondent-wife herein had, in her petition for Judicial Separation No. S4-33-50-2000 alleged in para. 10 of the petitioner husband herein had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. In para. 11 of the same petition she had also alleged adultery with the co-respondent. In the `particulars' in para. 12 she merely alleged that the petitioner-husband herein and the co-respondent had a `relationship' without giving detailed particulars. Her evidence in court showed that her allegations were based purely on suspicions and perhaps, possessiveness. In the petition for divorce No. S4-33-193-2001, the wife-petitioner had filed an answer. While she alleged adultery in para. 4, she had not made the alleged adulteress a party or claimed damages, in breach of Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976, ss. 58 (the Act), and Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980, r. 11. Indeed, she had not even alleged that she found it `intolerable' to live with the petitioner herein, in consequence of the alleged adultery. She has therefore fallen short of the pleading required under s. 54(1)(a) of the Act, insofar as the divorce proceedings are concerned. By failing to plead properly and by failing to make the co-respondent a party to the divorce proceedings, the respondent-wife has in fact shut herself out from seeking relief under s. 54(1)(a) and s. 58 of the Act. Indeed, her prayer in para. (5) of her answer to the divorce petition, that the party cited be ordered to pay damages has no foundation, as no party has been cited. This also means that her claim for damages must fail. In the trial, the co-respond