James Foong J:

The petitioner has filed a divorce petition against his wife, the respondent. This is encl. 1. The wife answered with a cross petition for divorce, and claims:

(a) half of the petitioner's assets acquired during the marriage;

(b) US$100,000 per month tax free for her life until she remarries;

(c) guardianship, custody and control of the 3 children of the marriage;

(d) maintenance for the children at US$50,000 per month with 5% annual increment;

(e) a trust fund to be set up by the petitioner for children at US$100 million for each child.

(f) extra tuition fees, medical fees and any incidental fees pertaining to the education of the children.

A party cited was also named and against her, she (the wife) claims damages of US$500 million, and be condemned in costs.

The pleadings closed with the petitioner tendering a reply and answer to crosspetition together with an answer of the party cited. Subsequent to the filing of directions for trial, this court fixed the hearing of this petition and crosspetition on 5 December 1997.

While awaiting trial, on 5 September 1997 the petitioner filed a summonsin-chambers to restrain the respondent from molesting, harassing, pestering or disturbing him and his children. This is in encl. 11. The return date for this application was 4 December 1997.

Not long thereafter, on 27 November 1997 the respondent by way of summonsin-chambers requested from this court:

(a) maintenance pending suit of US$100,000 per month from November 1993; and

(b) child support of US$40,000 per month for the 3 children with immediate effect. This application is encl. 21. The return date for the summons-inchambers was 4 December 1997.

On 4 December 1997, the date fixed for hearing of encl. 11 and 21, the parties attempted to settle the matters. Unfortunately it failed. Due to time constraints, ordered that encl. 11 and 21 be heard on the following day, 5 December 1997, together with the petition and cross-petition.

On the morning of 5 December 1997, Mr. Balwant Singh Sidhu, counsel for the petitioner and party cited informed this court that he had just filed an application on behalf of the petitioner for the following orders:

(i) that the following question or issue arising in this cause be tried before the trial of the cause and that is: "whether the Deed of Separation entered into between the parties on 4th February 1991 is valid in law, and subsist"; and

(ii) such further or other orders of directions as to the manner in which the said question or issue shall be stated.

This application is encl. 24 and the return date was 5 December 1997.

Miss Liew, counsel for the respondent, graciously agreed to have this application heard on 5 December 1997 itself, though it was just served on her client. She requested that the affidavits filed by both parties in respect of encl. 11 and 21 be used to base her arguments. This was accepted by this court with the consent of Mr. Balwant Singh Sidhu. With this, I proceeded to hear submissions relating to encl. 34 which should be decided before the petition and cross-petition are heard.

The subject matter in encl. 24 concerns a deed of separation entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 14 February 1991. It, inter alia spells out the following terms. (a) the parties due to unhappy differences agreed mutually to live separate and apart from each other;

(b) the respondent accepts the settlement of US$500,000 in full and final settlement of her separation, and "subject to the performance of this Deed by the husband (petitioner), the said settlement shall be deemed full and final settlement of all claims of matrimonial assets against the Husband in the event of a divorce";

(c) the petitioner shall pay to the respondent a sum US$5,000 per month tax free as her maintenance from the date of this deed with 5% per provision for inflation for her life or until she remarries;

(d) the petitioner shall pay respondent a sum of US$8,334 per mo