Lim Beng Choon J:

The petitioner and the respondent in this case, Hariram Jayaram and Saraswathy Rajahram, were married on 15 March 1973. At the time of the marriage they were respectively 33 and 34 years of age. The matrimonial home was at all material times at 132-D, Jalan Berhala, Kuala Lumpur. They both resided there until 16 April 1986 when the husband left the place and moved to 61-1E Rampai Court Kuala Lumpur. He has been staying at Rampai Court since then. There is no child of the family.

On 21 May 1988 the husband filed his petition wherein he alleged that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and that the parties to the marriage had lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Apart from his averment that attempts at reconciliation between the petitioner and the respondent by the Marriage Tribunal at Kuala Lumpur had failed, no other allegation has been made as to why the marriage has broken down irretrievably. By her answer filed on 26 September 1988 the wife denied that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and stated that efforts were being made by her and members of their respective families to reconcile the marriage. She said that she cared for the petitioner very much and wished to be reconciled. She also said that the Marriage Tribunal at Kuala Lumpur did not make any attempt to reconcile the parties; neither was she given a fair hearing by the said Tribunal. The rest of her averments relate to her requests for maintenance. On 10 November 1988 the husband filed his reply. In that reply the husband made five specific allegations and they are these:

(1) the wife's conduct while the parties were living together was one of irresponsibility without any concern for the welfare and care of the husband and that her primary concern was how to care for cats and dogs. Details of such irresponsibile conduct were stated in the reply.

(2) the wife stationed herself in the office premises of the husband's law firm although she had been persistently told by him not to do so.

(3) the wife took the liberty of entering into business and land deals with friends and clients of the husband, obtaining sizeable sums of money from them when there was no prospect of concluding the deals on account of which a police report was lodged against her and various civil suits were commenced against her. In the result the husband had to liquidate all his savings and borrow money from friends to settle her debts.

(4) throughout, the conduct of the wife and her business activities were such that the husband's career and reputation as a practising lawyer were put at stake. In the result the husband was put under severe stress.

(5) the petitioner was induced by the respondent to enter into guarantees with certain banks mentioned in the reply for the benefit of the respondent. This resulted in legal proceedings being instituted against the petitioner for payment of the guaranteed amount totalling more than RM650,000.

On 17 November 1988, the petitioner obtained an interim injunction restraining the respondent from entering into or interfering with the reasonable occupation and enjoyment of the petitioner of his business premises. Both parties also filed in their respective affidavits containing accusations and counter-accusations revolving round the specific allegation stated above. I do not propose to reproduce at any length the contents of the affidavits. I shall be reverting to them if and when it is necessary.

Adverting to the evidence adduced at the trial of this case, the husband in his evidence described the marriage as a very unhappy one even from the very beginning. He tolerated as much as he could as he thought that given time the parties could solve their marital problem. According to him signs of the breaking up of the marriage appeared ominously in 1981 when the parties started to live their separate ways. Although they still resided in the matrimon