Mahadev Shankar J:

[1] The petitioner husband (H) filed these proceedings for the dissolution of his marriage with his respondent wife (W). From the outset it was manifestly obvious to both parties that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. This fact was alleged in the petition and admitted in the answer.

[2] So when the matter came up for hearing on August 29, 1991, 1 made an order dissolving the marriage. But as there were contentious issues by way of cross claims for maintenance and/or lump sum payments I left the date open as to when the decree nisi should be made absolute.

[3] Having read the affidavits filed by the parties as to this aspect of the matter and heard the submission of counsel on November 19, 1991, I ordered that the decree nisi be made absolute on November 29, 1991.

[4] This judgment concerns the issue of the cash payments, if any, to be made by either party to the other.

[5] Before W met H, she was already married to an army officer. That marriage did not work. He died about 1986. From his death W received a gratuity of RM20,000 and a payment of RM10,000 from the Hero's Fund. W also sold his house from which she received her share of the proceeds. W then bought a house at Taman Nirwana Kuala Lumpur for RM110,000. She took a government loan of RM90,000 on the security of this house. She also borrowed RM30,000 from the United Asian Bank. In short before she met H she had the Taman Nirwana house to her name, and funds from her late husband's death. At all times material to the present proceedings W was employed as a legal assistant, earning almost double what H was receiving.

[6] H was employed as a bank clerk. Apart from his salary H had nothing.

[7] The parties did not stay in the Taman Nirwana house. W had let that house out for rent. The parties cohabited at another address in Taman Sri Segambut Kuala Lumpur. The marriage was a disaster. H could not bear to live with W. On May 7, 1989, barely ten months later he left the matrimonial home.

[8] H then went to stay with his parents and brothers and sisters, all in the one house at Taman Seri Gombak Kuala Lumpur.

[9] W continued for some time in Taman Seri Segambut. She then left that address and took up residence with her parents at Jalan Ipoh. In January 1991, W moved into a flat in Taman Setia Wangsa which she has been sharing with her Chinese landlady ever since.

[10] After H left the matrimonial home W filed an action for maintenance in the Magistrate's Court Kuala Lumpur. After a lengthy hearing spread over a period of ten days the magistrate made an order on August 2, 1990, directing H to pay W RM150 per month not from the date of the order but from the date of W's application on November 20, 1989. The arrears alone amounted to RM1800 which H was not in a financial position to pay. So the severity of this order was diluted to a payment of RM50 per month towards the arrears to be paid with the monthly sums as they fell due. Against this H filed an appeal to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur.

[11] Meanwhile an application to the Conciliatory Body had already been made. Meetings were held on September 14 and September 28 and October 19, 1989. A certificate was issued on November 9, 1989, that no reconciliation was possible.

[12] This is significant because whilst the maintenance proceedings were pending, all concerned must have known that a divorce petition was imminent.

[13] This petition was filed on August 27, 1990. It contained a prayer for maintenance of a lump sum to be paid by W to H. The appeal against the magistrate's order was also pending but by the date of die hearing of the divorce petition the notes of evidence of the trial in the Magistrate's Court was still not ready. H's solicitors withdrew the appeal and ventilated the issue in this Court by filing a summons-in-chambers inter alia for the magistrate's order to be set aside.

[14] When making the decree nisi, I also ordered a stay of the magistrate's order pursuant to which H had already paid