JUDGMENT

Ajaib Singh J

I shall deal with the petitioner's case first. She seeks divorce from her husband on ground of cruelty. In support of her case she has given evidence herself and has produced several police reports and medical certificates. The respondent has not seriously challenged her allegations of assault but says that he had tried to stop her from going out late at night. On the evidence before me I am quite satisfied that the petitioner had proved her allegations of assault against the respondent and has thus proved cruelty against him.

The respondent in turn has alleged that the petitioner has committed adultery with two persons whom he has cited in his cross-petition. In support of his allegations he said that he had heard about his wife's association with one Koh Teck Soon the 1st party cited and as for the 2nd party cited Tan Chan Huat he had seen him living together with his wife and one younger daughter in a flat in Singapore. The petitioner had denied all these allegations but having heard the evidence in this case I am satisfied that the respondent has on his part adduced sufficient evidence which conclusively proves that the petitioner has committed adultery with Tan Chan Huat the 2nd party cited but not against the 1st party cited.

The petitioner having proved cruelty against the respondent she would be entitled to a decree nisi but she has wilfully and deliberately suppressed the fact of her own adultery with the 2nd party cited which means that there is a discretionary bar to the matrimonial relief which she now seeks. Having herself committed adultery she should have prayed for the court's discretion in her petition and at the same time filed in court a discretion statement setting out all the facts relating to her adultery with the 2nd party cited in accordance with the Divorce Rules. This she has failed to do and in all the circumstances of the case I refuse to exercise my discretion in her favour and her petition is accordingly dismissed.

The respondent has proved adultery against the petitioner and he is therefore entitled to succeed in his petition as there is no bar to the relief he seeks. He is granted a decree nisi to be made absolute after three months.

The respondent has also prayed that the two parties cited be condemned by way of damages. However I do not propose to order damages against any of the party cited. The respondent has adduced insufficient evidence to establish adultery on the part of petitioner against the 1st party. He has however proved adultery by the petitioner against the 2nd party cited but on the evidence before me I find that the respondent was not altogether free from blame for having placed his wife in a position where she had an opportunity of having affairs with other men. The respondent was living in a flat in Jurong where no less than eight male persons were sharing a room on rent. It was within his knowledge also that the 1st and 2nd party cited were on more than friendly terms with the petitioner and at least one of them was his tenant. I therefore do not feel justified in ordering damages against the parties cited.

The petitioner and the respondent will bear their own costs. The petitioner does not seek custody of two of her children but would like to have custody of the third child as well as access to the two children who are now living with the respondent. These and other ancillary matters will be heard in chambers at a later date.