JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] These appeals concern primarily the interpretation of ss 3 and 58 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ('the LRA').
Background Facts
[2] The appellant in both these appeals filed a judicial separation petition in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur (Family Division) against her husband. The appellant alleged that the husband had committed adultery with the respondent in the present appeals.
[3] It is important to note that the appellant and her husband both of whom are non-Muslims, were married in New South Wales, Australia but were domiciled in Malaysia for a period of two years immediately preceding the commencement of the petition. It must also be clarified at the outset that I make no ruling as to the merits of the petition and its outcome.
Proceedings In The High Court
[4] The appellant pleaded, in accordance with s 54(1)(a) of the LRA, that as a result of her husband's adulterous relationship with the respondent, who is a Muslim, the appellant had been abandoned by her husband and that her marriage had broken down.
[5] In her judicial separation petition, the appellant cited her husband as the respondent and named the respondent in the instant appeals as co-respondent. The appellant prayed that the respondent be condemned in damages under s 58 of the LRA and that the husband as well as the co-respondent bear the costs of the petition.
[6] The respondent contended that she had been wrongly cited as a party. She filed an application under O 18 r 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC 2012') and/or Rule 103 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 ('DMPR 1980') and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the court to strike out the judicial separation petition against her.
[7] The application to strike out was premised on the following grounds: