Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes and maintaining a safe environment is crucial for the child's upbringing.

Faizah Jamaludin J:

A. Introduction

[1] This is an application by the plaintiff wife, CCKY, for the following:

(i) sole guardianship, custody, care of the child of the marriage, O, with reasonable access to O be given to the defendant husband, CCT;

(ii) for child maintenance in the sum of RM8,700 per month until August 2018 and the sum of RM11,200 per month after August 2018, with an annual increase of 5% per year effective on 1 January of every year, until the child completes his first degree;

(iii) for the child's educational, medical, dental and optical expenses and insurance policies purchased in the child's name until maturity;

(iv) for spousal maintenance in the sum of RM4,500 per month, with an annual increase of 5% per year effective on 1 January of every year,

(v) interest of 5% per annum on sums due and owing by him under the Order of this Court;

(vi) for the defendant husband to return the sum of RM16,620.00 to her; and

(vii) that the defendant husband be restrained until further Order from assaulting, molesting, harassing, threatening and/or otherwise forcing his society upon or interfering with the plaintiff, her family and/or the child.

[2] After reading the plaintiff's and the defendant's affidavits and hearing the submissions of counsel, I made the orders detailed in section D of this Judgment.

[3] The full grounds for my decision and for the orders made in respect of the plaintiff's application are set out in this Judgment.

B. Background Facts

[4] The parties were married on 8 January 2016. The child of the marriage was born on 18 September 2017.

[5] The plaintiff wife contends that it was only after the marriage that she found that the defendant husband has a propensity for violence. She says that during an argument on 23 October 2017 that took place in a car at the defendant's parents' house in Teluk Intan, the defendant "exploded in unreasonable rage" and pushed her face and slapped her. The defendant denies having attacked her; he challenges the plaintiff as regards the incident and puts her to strict proof.

[6] The plaintiff avers that on 25 October 2017 at around 11 pm whilst they were staying at the defendant's parents' house in Teluk Intan, Perak, the plaintiff and the defendant had another argument, where the defendant threw her luggage bag outside the door and stepped on the bag twice causing it to break. The plaintiff says that during the same argument the defendant called her "bitch", pushed her roughly, slapped her and spat on her twice while she was holding the child in her arms. He threatened to smash her head if she dropped the child after she refused to pass the child to his sister. She says that she refused to hand the child over because she was afraid that the defendant would abuse her further. He then asked her at 1.30am to call her parents who were then in Melaka. The plaintiff says that upon hearing the physical abuse and verbal insults that the defendant had inflicted on her, her parents and younger brother drove 4.5 hours to Teluk Intan from Melaka. The defendant's mother told the plaintiff's parents that his violence was only "in the spur of the moment". The plaintiff and the child left Teluk Intan with her parents and her younger brother for their house in Seremban on the morning of 26 October 2017. The defendant denies the plaintiff's averments of the events that took place in Teluk Intan; he challenges her as to the whole incident and puts her to strict proof.

[7] The plaintiff says that on 27 October 2017, the defendant called the plaintiff to ask her to return to their Damansara Villa condominium in Kuala Lumpur. However, he told her that her parents are no longer welcome in his house and that he never wants to see them again. The plaintiff says that she told him that she could never return on such conditions and after that the defendant did not allow her back to the Damansara Villa condominium except to pack her things in his presence.

[8] The plaintiff says that she went over once to th