JUDGMENT

Faiza Tamby Chik J:

By a petition dated 23 June 1998, the petitioner had sought to dissolve the marriage which was contracted on 7 February 1991 on the basis that it had broken down irretrievably. The petitioner had alleged that the respondent had behaved in such a way that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her and that they had lived apart for at least a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

The respondent had in her reply to the petition made a series of allegation against the petitioner and had also prayed for financial relief under s. 60 of The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (Act 164) ('The Law Reform Act'). The petitioner had in his reply, strictly denied all the allegations made by the respondent.

Although the parties were legally married, the marriage was never solemnised according to Hindu custom owing to irreconcilable differences between the petitioner and the respondent which resulted in the parties living apart since the marriage and until the granting of the decree nisi. The marriage was never consummated and there were no children of the marriage.

However, the court had on 22 May 1998, by mutual consent of the parties, granted a decree nisi dissolving the marriage and adjourned all matters pertaining to ancillary relief to 9 July 1998. The court did not make any finding of fact as to the degree of responsibility of the parties for the breakdown of the marriage.

The petitioner is employed as a bank officer at the Bank of Commerce and his net income after deduction amounts to only RM4,007.81 and after a deduction of RM1242 per month towards a housing loan, the petitioner's take home pay amounts to about RM3,142.83. The petitioner had further stated that his household expenditure amounts to about RM1,747 per month, the breakdown of which being -

1. salary paid for a part-time maid RM250

2. expenses for an invalid mother RM250 (inclusive of medication)

3. the petitioner's expenses RM300

4. the petitioner's travelling expenses RM300

5. A car loan from Multi Purpose Finance RM447 6. other miscellaneous expenses RM200 (water, electric and telephone bills)

RM1,747

During the economic boom the petitioner had borrowed money from various banks and financial institutions to invest in the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange. Due to the downfall in the stock market the petitioner had suffered excessive losses and he is now saddled with the month repayment towards the following loans: 1. Maybank Finance Bhd RM273 2. Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd RM267 3. Kewangan Bersatu Bhd RM278 4. Bank Pertanian Malaysia RM470 5. Bank Bumiputra (M) Bhd ] (Interest for overdraft) ] 6. Arab Malaysia Bank Berhad ] (interest for overdraft) ] RM780

RM2,068

The petitioner has also taken personal loans by way of credit cards to settle the losses he has incurred in the stock market.

As for the respondent, she had not disclosed any particulars regarding her financial need or details of her monthly expenditure.

The Law

The respondent is seeking financial relief under s. 60 of the Law Reform Act 1976. The court is empowered to order maintenance for the respondent, if necessary, by virtue of s. 77 of the Law Reform Act 1976.

In considering financial provisions for the respondent, the court should primarily base its assessment on the means and needs of the parties regardless of the proportion such maintenance bears to the income of the spouse but to have regard to the degree of responsibility which the court apportions to each party for the breakdown of the marriage.

However, s. 77 of the Law Reform Act 1976 may not be strictly applicable in view of the fact that the parties never lived together since marriage and the marriage was never consummated.

In looking at the factor of the shortness of the marriage Wood J in Mcgrady v. Mcgrady [1980] FLR 1 at p. 72 applied the following considerations to assist him in determining maintenance -

(1) the circumstances of the