Lim Beng Choon J:

At the outset I must confess that I find it rather difficult to arrive at a decision which would be fair to both the parties to this divorce petition and expecting neither heroic virtue or selfless abrogation from either. This is so because both the husband petitioner and the wife respondent refused to subject themselves to viva voce examination at the trial of this case on 22 November 1989; neither did they call any witnesses to testify for them. I had indicated to them that it would be of assistance to this Court if both parties were prepared to give oral evidence on oath. However they refused and preferred to let me make a decision based on their respective affidavit evidence. Under the circumstances I can only do the best I can with the materials before me.

In this divorce petition filed on 11 December 1987 the husband petitioner averred that he married the wife respondent on 8 July 1969 at the Registry of Marriages, Georgetown, Penang under the Civil Marriage Ordinance 1952. They had lived and cohabited in Petaling Jaya. There are three children in the family. The eldest daughter was born on 27 May 1970, the second son was born on 30 May 1972 and the third daughter was born on 22 September 1976. The matrimonial problems were referred to the Reconciliatory Tribunal Petaling Jaya and the said tribunal had issued a certificate certifying that they had not been able to resolve the matrimonial problems to the satisfaction of the parties. The husband petitioner thereupon averred that the marriage had irretrievably broken down since the parties had lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years. Appropriate arrangements were made for the custody, care and control and maintenance of the children.

The wife respondent contested the petition and in her answer she denied that the marriage had broken down irretrievably because:

(a) the respondent had at all times been a good and responsible wife and mother to the petitioner and the children;

(b) the respondent had been happily married for the past fifteen years until the petitioner suddenly left home without any cause or reason;

(c) the marriage was preceded by six years of courtship and only after careful consideration did the parties go into matrimony;

(d) the respondent had at all times stood by the petitioner in all his adversities and has at all times given the petitioner whatever support and love that is expected of a wife;

(e) the respondent had at no time done anything wrong to warrant the petitioner leaving the house and family.

The wife respondent also averred that the husband petitioner's desertion had taken a heavy toll on the children's education and happiness and the respondent wholly attributed this to the petitioner's absence. The respondent believed that the marriage was never irretrievably broken down and from the petitioner's close contacts with his children, the petitioner would return to the family. Finally the wife respondent averred that she firmly believed that in the circumstances and particularly having considered the interest of all parties concerned especially the children, it would be wrong in principle to dissolve the marriage.

In response to the wife respondent's contentions the husband petitioner put in his reply on 16 December 1988. In the reply he averred inter alia that:

(i) the parties had lived apart for a continuous period of nearly five years;

(ii) it was the respondent's aggressive, abusive and domineering behaviour which permeated the 15 years of marriage that had destroyed any love, trust and respect which the petitioner had in the respondent;

(iii) the respondent was a violent person with an uncontrollable temper, often attacking the petitioner physically;

(iv) the respondent constantly used foul and abusive language both on the petitioner and the children of the marriage;

(v) the respondent would insist on having her way in all aspects of the marriage and would resort even to emotional blackmail and thre