The court emphasizes the welfare of children in custody cases, evaluates maintenance based on the means of the parties, and ensures equitable distribution of matrimonial assets post-divorce.

[1] The petitioner husband and the respondent wife were married on 9 June 1993. The petitioner was 53 years old and the respondent 49 years old. The petitioner is a consultant general and vascular surgeon. The respondent is presently giving English tuition on a part-time basis. The petitioner and the respondent since marriage have stayed together for almost 15 years at premise No 7 Western Garden, 10450 Penang ('the matrimonial home'), the last cohabited address before the petitioner left the matrimonial home some time in March 2008 and lives in a rented apartment. The parties have been living apart since then. The petitioner and the respondent have a son and a daughter who were born of the marriage. The first child and only son, Bhavesh M Lakswani was born on 11 July 1995, now 16 years old. And the youngest child Nanda M Lakhwani was born on 3 August 1996, now 15 years old. The children are now staying with the respondent at No 76-6-3A, Marina Bay Condominium, Jalan Tanjong Tokong 10470 Penang. The matrimonial home is registered jointly under the petitioner's and the respondent's name.

The Trial

[2] At the commencement of the hearing, the petitioner and the respondent have agreed that the proof of the breakdown of the marriage be dispensed with and the degree of responsibilities of each party for the breakdown of the marriage to be apportioned on 50/50 basis. The parties have also agreed that the issue of custody of the children is to be determined after interviewing the children by this court. The petitioner husband called two witnesses namely the petitioner himself ('SP1') and Balakumar Jayaraman, the company secretary of BN Lakhwani Sdn Bhd. The respondent called one witness name, herself.

[3] The petitioner has in his divorce petition in Lampiran 1 made, inter alia, the following allegations:

(i) during the marriage, the respondent frequently displayed aggressive, hostile and violent behavior in her treatment of the petitioner, and example of which was an attack with a pointed forked clothes retriever in or about 2004;

(ii) during a marriage, the respondent showed a lack of care and consideration for the petitioner and his career as a general and vascular surgeon notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was the sole breadwinner in the family;

(iii) during the marriage, the respondent manifestly an intense dislike of the petitioner's parents and his siblings in total disregard of the petitioner feeling;

(iv) on December 2007, the respondent assaulted the petitioner at the matrimonial home by splashing hot tea on his face and then threw a bunch of keys at his face. As a result of the assault, the petitioner had to spend the night at alternative accommodation;

(v) in February 2008, the respondent spat on the petitioner and on his food as he was eating;

(vi) in March 2008, the petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and live in a rented apartment on account of the intolerable behavior of the respondent;

(vii) since separation, the respondent has perpetrated harassment in various ways against the petitioner on multiple occasions.

[4] The respondent had in her answer and cross petition (Lampiran 13) denied those allegations and has averred that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down as a result of the petitioner's own behavior, inter alia, the following