Ambrose J:

Two points arose for determination in this appeal against a maintenance order made by a Magistrate. The first was whether the potential earning capacity of the respondent should have been taken into consideration in assessing maintenance. The Magistrate ignored it, apparently taking the view that, as the respondent had not been working during her married life, she should not be made to feel that she would have to work to relieve the appellant of a financial liability which he himself had created by causing the break-up of the marriage.

Here it must be pointed out that the Court of Appeal in England stated in the case of Rose v. Rose, [1950] 2 All ER 311 that the question whether the potential earning capacity of a wife is to be taken into account in assessing maintenance depends on the facts of each case and no general rule can be laid down. In the same case Denning LJ said (at p. 313):

.... if she (i.e. the wife) is a young woman with no children, and obviously ought to go out to work in her own interest, but does not, then her potential earning capacity ought to be taken into account....

In the present case I took the view that the respondent ought to go out to work in her own interest. She is a young woman with no children, and work with its attendant responsibilities would help to develop her character along the right lines. She was married to the appellant on 3 September 1955. They went to England in April 1956. There they had quarrels over her dowry, and her relations with her husband were not always happy. On their return in November 1956 the appellant sent her to her parents' home in Penang to settle the matter of her dowry with her father and to change her attitude towards the appellant completely. On 5 June 1957 the appellant, on hearing from the respondent that she was planning to return to him, wrote to her that she was to return only when sent for and that he had no intention of meeting her at the Singapore Airport. On 27 June 1958, she came to Singapore and stayed with some friends. She made many attempts to meet the appellant but was unsuccessful and returned to Penang on 2 July 1958. In February 1959, she came to Singapore again and made another abortive attempt to meet the appellant. She then made a complaint to a Magistrate about the appellant's failure to maintain her. The appellant's reason for not sending for the respondent was that he was not satisfied that she had changed her attitude towards him. By this he meant that she should accept his leadership in the home, be loyal to him, refrain from unnecessary argument, and leave the final decision in controversial matters to him. Another reason the appellant had for not sending for the respondent was that her father had not given her the property which he had promised to give her on her marriage. The Magistrate appeared to me to have come to the conclusion that the appellant was wholly to blame for the break-up of the marriage. Here it is necessary to turn to a letter written by the respondent to the appellant on 13 February 1958. In this letter the respondent admits having hurt the appellant's feelings by letting off steam, having been resistant and argumentative, and having been guilty of excessive pride and lack of understanding in their married life. In my opinion, the respondent was partly to blame for the break-up of the marriage, and this was an additional reason for taking her potential earning capacity into account in assessing maintenance. Before her marriage, she was working as a teacher for a period of two years and earning a monthly salary of $160. I assessed her potential earning capacity at $160 a month. The maintenance awarded by the Magistrate was $450 per mensem. This was based on the fact that the appellant was earning $1,520 a month, including allowances, as a doctor employed by the City Council. Taking into consideration the respondent's potential earning capacity, which was ignored by the Magistrate, I reduced the