Hepworth J:

The petitioner, Lee Kah Wah, is now a factory supervisor and resides at No. 117, Patani Road, Penang.

The respondent, Cheah Paik Yean, is a housewife and now resides at No. 14, Burmah Lane, Penang.

The petitioner and the respondent were married in the Registry of Civil Marriages, Penang, under the provisions of the Civil Marriage Ordinance, 1952 on 25 February 1959. Thereafter they lived and cohabited at No. 4, Tanjong Tokong Road, Penang, and then at No. 27-P, Lorong Kampong Melayu, Penang.

There is one child of the said marriage now living namely Lee Weng Thong, a male, who was born on 11 February 1960.

The co-respondent, Louis Lim's last known address is care of the Manager's House, Kepong Dredging Co. Ltd., Jinjang, Selangor, but his present whereabouts is not known. He was served by advertisement and did not enter an appearance.

The petitioner charges the respondent with cruelty and adultery. In her answer the respondent charges the petitioner with cruelty, adultery and desertion. On these grounds the petitioner and the respondent respectively pray for the dissolution of the marriage.

The petitioner left the matrimonial home, at that time at No. 27-P, Lorong Kampong Melayu, on 3 February 1960 and it will be seen from this that the marriage lasted less than one year.

The petitioner in support of his charge of cruelty pleaded 17 different acts on the part of the respondent which he alleged amounted to cruelty, fourteen of them between 13 March 1959 arid 8 August 1959 and three between 26 December 1959 and 3 February 1960.

I do not propose to refer to these individual incidents in detail. The legal conception of cruelty which is not defined by statute is generally described as conduct of such a character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental) or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of stich danger. The general rule in all questions of cruelty is that the whole matrimonial relations must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts, but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. Before coming to a conclusion, the Court must consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, and all incidents and quarrels between the spouses must be weighed from that point of view. In determining what constitutes cruelty regard must be had to the circumstances of each particular case, keeping always in view the physical and mental condition of the parties and their character and social status. (Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 12, p. 269). The incidents with which we are concerned must be looked at as a whole and not one by one. It is necessary to consider therefore whether the petitioner's story can be accepted at its face value or whether it is exaggerated and whether or not the petitioners story is to be accepted at its face value or it is exaggerated did the acts complained of constitute conduct of such a character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental) or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger?

When considering this question it is necessary to remember that the burden of proof of a matrimonial offence is upon the person alleging it and the standard of proof is similar to that in a criminal case, that is to say it is necessary for the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Of the 14 incidents which were alleged to have taken place between 13 March 1959, and 8 August 1959, in only 3 of them, those which took place on 13 March 1959, 30 June 1959, and 1 August 1959, were witnesses called to support the petitioner's story. Of these the evidence of Wong Khay Koe (PW5) who gave evidence as to the incidents on 13 March 1959 and on 30 June 1959, was not impressive as his recollection did not appear to be very clear. The respondent called 2 domestic servants who gave evidence in respect of 6 of such incidents, evi