Zainun Ali JC:

[2] The Court is therefore conscious of the need to focus on the welfare of the children, which should transcend all other considerations and it is not, if one can excuse the pun, child's play.

[3] Case laws are plentiful with regard to these observations, as are exemplified by B v. B [1971] 1 WLR, M v. M [1973] Family Division and Re Ko [1990] 1 MLJ, among others.

[4] The facts can briefly be summarised as follows:

[5] The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) divorced on 13 September 1995.

[6] It is undisputed that the petitioner brought up and raised the three children of the marriage whose ages range from six, four, and three years, since they were born.

[7] The petitioner was for the most part, assisted by her mother, who stayed with them, except for a short spell in 1995 when the petitioner's mother stayed with the petitioner's brother. The petitioner's sister also lent a helping hand to this young family.

[8] The petitioner works as a hairdresser, earning RM1,500 a month and seems financially competent to look after her children.

[9] The respondent on the other hand, does not appear to be financially sound and does not show much inclination towards proving how the children would be better off staying with him.

[10] Thus, the petitioner prays for:

(a) Custody and guardianship of the children of the marriage ie Low Mun Liang, Low Mun Hoong and Low Mun Kent;

(b) The present arrangement with regard to access for the respondent be continued;

(c) Costs to be borne by both parties and an application under s 93(1)(d) for maintenance of RM500 per month.

[11] Both petitioner and respondent, in their respective affidavits averred that each is capable of bringing up the three children of the marriage and that the other party is not fit or competent to do so.

[13] The law as it stands on this authority cited before me says that " access is the basic right of the child rather than the parent."

[15] And as stated in Khoo Cheng Ngee v. Labin Chiew, [1996] 4 MLJ 171 p 42, "at this tender age what the children seek and need most is stability..." A Court will normally favour the parent who will best maintain stability..."

[16] This is fortified by s 11, Guardianship of Infant Act 1961 which in unequivocal terms states "all relevant facts, relationships, claims and wishes of parents, risks, choices and other circumstances are taken into account and weighed."

[17] After that, choose what is most in the children's welfare Re Ko [1990] 1 MLJ and finally the capacity of the parents is of immense importance including capacity of forming affectionate and loving relationship with the child. Re Ko [1990] 1 MLJ.

[18] In that regard, it is pertinent now to consider the facts and the law and weigh them as to come to a just decision, in the light of the evidence before this Court.

[19] Firstly, it is apparent that the friction between the petitioner and respondent never abated and in fact has widened with the commencement of this suit.

[20] Since the evidence is stated only in the affidavits, this Court had carefully read them over. What is interesting to note is that the a