Abdul Malik Ishak J:

[1] On 29 April 1979 the petitioner Wong Kim Foong (f) was lawfully married to the respondent Teau Ah Kau @ Chong Kwong Fatt. That union was initially blissful for they spent most Sundays together in tiny Singapore notwithstanding the fact that they were resident in Johor Bahru. Once in two years both of them would take an overseas vacation. In fact, the happy couple went overseas for their honeymoon. They have been to Europe particularly to Switzerland, and Langkawi, Kedah Darulaman, and, with their son, they even proceeded to Club Mediterranean in Pahang and then onwards to Penang. They too took their son along on holidays in Australia. After the birth of their son, both the couple took a breather in New Zealand. Like most modern Chinese couples before they tied the marital knot, they cohabitated at No: 38, Jalan Tasek, Taman Tasek, Johor Bahru (hereinafter referred to as the "Tasek house"). It was obvious that they believed in pre-marital relationship. The Tasek house was purchased on 8 June 1977 in their joint names. On 24 October 1991, they jointly purchased another house at No: 12, Jalan Rosmerah 4/4, Taman Johor Jaya, Johor Bahru (hereinafter referred to as the "Johor Jaya house"). I have more to say, at a later stage, in regard to these two houses. Meantime, in regard to the Tasek house which was bought in contemplation of their marriage as the petitioner so testified, I am reminded of what Sir Raymond Evershed MR said in Re Rogers' Question [1948] 1 All ER 328; 27 Digest, Replacement, 264, 2130:

When two people are about to be married and are negotiating for a matrimonial home it does not naturally enter the head of either to inquire carefully, still less to agree, what should happen to the house if the marriage comes to grief. What the judge must try to do in all such cases is, after seeing and hearing the witnesses, to try to conclude what at the time was in the parties' minds and then to make an order which, in the changed conditions, now fairly gives effect in law to what the parties, in the judge's finding, must be taken to have intended at the time of the transaction itself.

[2] Both parties, as the evidence unfolded, jointly purchased shares and the petitioner averred in her petition that she held 17 share certificates of 1,000 shares each in Lien Hoe Corporation Bhd The respondent in his answer deposed that those 17,000 shares of RM1.00 each in Lian Hoe Corporation belonged to him. Notwithstanding this divergent view they both purchased some shares jointly. This was another striking example of that marital bond that existed between both parties. Love naturally grew between them and eventually on 20 June 1984 the petitioner gave birth to a baby boy named Edwin Chong Lik Ming.

[3] Good things must somehow come to an end. This case was no exception. Matrimonial difficultes cropped up and that blissful marriage broke down irretrievably. Attempts at reconciliation proved futile.

[4] It was said that the respondent behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with him. Somehow the respondent testified, adding a new complexion to the case, that the petitioner had a boy friend. There was no cross-examination of the respondent on this point and it seemed that it must be true (KS Chua & Co v. Chui Miang Chew & Ors, [1995] 4 MLJ 436). In fact para 13 of the respondent's answer adverted to the intervention of a male third party as the sole cause for the breakdown of the marriage. To be fair to the petitioner she did deny the boy friend issue in her answer at bundle "A". Be that as it may, before me the petitioner sought in para 12 of the petition for the following prayers:

(a) that the said marriage may be dissolved;

(b) that the petitioner be granted custody of Edwin Chong Lik Ming with reasonable access to the respondent;

(c) that the respondent do pay the petitioner a reasonable sum per month for the maintenance of their child, namely, Edwin Chong Lik Ming;

(d) (i