JUDGMENT
[1] The three questions of law for which leave to appeal was granted under s 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91] revolve around the issue of whether cause papers, from petition to interlocutory applications and associated affidavits, filed under the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164] read with the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 [DMPR] may be filed in the English Language without an accompanying translation in the National Language in view of Registrar's Circular No 5 of 1990 [Registrar's Circular]. The three questions of law are:
i. Whether petitions for judicial separation or divorce (matrimonial proceedings) filed pursuant to the provisions of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164] and the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 [DMPR] may be filed in the English Language only.
ii. If so, whether all other cause papers filed in the matrimonial proceedings may be filed in the English Language only.
iii. If the answers to either one or both of the questions above are in the negative, whether the filing of the documents in English only is an irregularity that can be cured with the necessary directions by the Court that the said cause papers be filed in Bahasa Malaysia.
[2] We answered the first two questions in the affirmative leaving the third question unnecessary for determination. Aside from counsel representing the respective parties, the Malaysian Bar appeared as amicus curiae. We place on record our appreciation for all submissions made.
[3] We must point out the fact that even before we started with the hearing of the substantive appeal, we were urged by the respondent to strike out the appeal on the basis that it was academic. The respondent had filed an application to this effect - encl 6. According to the respondent, the parties had withdrawn the petition for judicial separation, proceeded to file a joint petition for divorce and had obtained a decree nisi with the necessary orders for custody and guardianship of the child from the marriage. Given these circumstances, the Federal Court was said to be without jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the matter was now academic; essentially because there was no longer any lis pending in the Courts below.