I heard this application on 4 April 1996. At the conclusion of the hearing, I granted the application, the order to be in terms of which the advocate for the applicant was to submit a draft for approval. I said I would hand down reasons for my decision, which I now do.

This is the return date of an interim injunction granted by the learned Chief Justice on 21 March 1996 when he heard an appeal by the respondent against the decision of a magistrate dated 6 February 1996, whereby the respondent was ordered to leave the matrimonial home ('the home') of himself and the applicant at 152 Simpang 160-2, Jalan Berakas within 48 hours of being served with the order prohibiting him from thereafter entering the home and that the applicant be allowed to remain undisturbed in the home. This was what is known in matrimonial proceedings as an 'ouster order'.

The respondent appealed against the magistrate's order, one of the grounds being that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to make such an order. The applicant conceded that ground and the Chief Justice then allowed the appeal and made an interim order in the same terms with a return date of 2 April 1996. I must therefore now consider whether that order should be continued and if so, on what terms.

Background

The applicant and the respondent were married in Brunei on 27 February 1967. Both are citizens of Brunei, the applicant being 55 years of age and the respondent 57. The respondent was a government servant but is now retired on a pension.

There are four children of the marriage:

(1) Lim Si Ching, a female, born on 10 February 1968. She is now studying in England;

(2) Lim Chee Pung, a son, born on 24 January 1972. He is apparently mentally retarded and according to the applicant's affidavit, has psychotic disorder problems which include becoming violent. That is not in dispute;

(3) Lim Si Ying, another daughter, born on 9 December 1973. She is mentally retarded; and

(4) Lim Hei Toon, a son, born on 20 June 1977. He is also studying in England.

There have been allegations by the applicant, most of which were denied by the respondent, of various forms of misconduct extending several years back. The grounds upon which the applicant sought a divorce were that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the respondent's adultery and his conduct, including violence, towards her. She says she cannot now tolerate living with the respondent. While a reconciliation between the parties cannot be ruled out, from a reading of the affidavits and the course these proceedings have taken, that seems unlikely although the respondent says he still loves the applicant and will defend the divorce proceedings.

Both the applicant and the respondent agreed that caring for the two handicapped children, Lim Si Ying in particular, had placed a great burden on them though there was a dispute as to how that burden was shared. The applicant denies that the condition of the children caused the marriage to fail and said hat it was due to the attitude of the respondent towards her and his resort to prostitutes, while away from Brunei, which the applicant said she found most upsetting.

The allegations of assault made by the applicant relate to 1 November 1993 and 5 December 1993, when she alleged that she was struck with a rubber hose and on 2 March 1995, when she was punched and sought medical treatment at RIPAS Hospital. Finally, on 3 February 1996, she said that the respondent slapped and kicked her. He threatened her that he would continue to assault her. She again sought medical treatment. She also reported the incident to the police. Exhibited to an affidavit sworn by the applicant in reply are copies of a medical report dated 26 February 1996 and a police report of 3 February 1996 in the Malay language.

There was also a statement purported to be made by her son, Lim Hei Toon, relating to the earlier alleged assaults by the respondent on the applicant, together with a report by a private inquiry