The presumption that a child under seven should primarily be in maternal custody remains intact unless sufficiently rebutted.

[1] The following two appeals were heard together before us on 23 August 2018 and 4 September 2018:

(1) Civil Appeal No: B-02(A)-1277-06-2018 ("Appeal No: 1277") in respect of encl 1 of the Originating Summons ("OS") which OS was filed by the respondent/plaintiff/father of the child ("father"); and

(2) Civil Appeal No: B-02(A)-1278-06-2018 ("Appeal No: 1278") in respect of encl 48 of the OS.

[2] Both appeals were filed by the appellant/defendant/mother of the child ("mother").

[3] Enclosure 1 was the father's application for, inter alia, custody, care and control (hereinafter cumulatively referred to as "custody") of the child, Marc Aiden Fernandez, to be given to the father with access to the mother, together with other ancillary orders.

[4] Enclosure 48 was the mother's Notice of Application to amend the interim custody Order dated 12 April 2018 where, in respect of encls 4 and 10, the High Court had granted interim custody of the child to the father pending the hearing of the OS ie the application in encl 1. The mother had applied to vary the interim custody Order to reverse it so that sole custody of the child would be given to her.

Background Facts

[5] Briefly, the facts of in the case are as follows.

[6] The father and mother were legally married on 28 May 2011. On 16 December 2012, they were blessed with a son, ie the child.

[7] Both parties are professionals. The father is a practising lawyer whilst the mother, a qualified accountant, is now working flexi-hours as a Real Estate Negotiator with Reapfield Properties (HQ) Sdn Bhd.

[8] According to the father, their marriage was plagued with disputes and quarrels due to the quick temper of the mother who more often than not always threatened the father by hurting herself, loved to scream and would turn violent every time her wishes were not complied with. The father alleged that in fact the mother had, on a few occasions, caused damage to their household properties such as breaking the kitchen cabinet door and the door to their bedroom cabinets (paras 19-24 of the father's affidavit in encl 2). The father further alleged that a few of their maids have left their employment because of the mother's temper and attitude. The father has come to a point where he is now reluctant to engage a new maid to assist in the housework since he is wary of the wife's behaviour and ill treatment of their maid (maid's letter, exh MF-4 of encl 2). The father alleged that the mother is always prioritising her side of the family, rather than spending time with their son and him. On or about 10 January 2018, after yet another quarrel between them, the mother together with the child left their family home in Taman Gasing Indah, Petaling Jaya, and went back to her parents' house.

[9] The mother, in her affidavit in reply admitted that they were always quarrelling not because of her but because of the father's quick temper, dishonesty, abuse and manipulation. The mother denied the allegation of her being destructive of the household items. She averred that instead, those incidents were beyond her control, for example, the glass cabinet fell because it was loose, and when she was cleaning the glass fragments, the father came back and accused her of causing damage to the glass door of the said cabinet. The mother further averred that she was the one who spent most of the time with the child and managed the child's school timetable and other activities because of her flexible working hours, in contrast to the father who is a full-time partner in a law firm and is always busy, and most of the time, he would let his mother or their maid to take care of the child.

[10] The wife made a counterclaim in the OS by way of her affidavit for custody of the