[18] PH had filed a single petition for divorce alleging that the marriage had broken down irretrievably because RW has behaved in such a way that PH cannot reasonably be expected to live with her and that the parties to the marriage had lived apart for a continuous period of more than two years immediately prior to the presentation of the single divorce petition. It is to be noted that PH had alleged that he was physically and mentally abused by RW and supported his
[2019] 1 LNS 1976 Legal Network Series
above). In Hariram Jayaram v. Saraswathy Rajahram [1990] 1 MLJ 114, the petitioner and the respondent were married on 15 March 1972. They both resided at the matrimonial home until 16 April 1986 when the petitioner left the place and moved out. There is no child from the marriage. On 21 May 1988, the petitioner filed a divorce petition alleging that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and that the parties to the marriage had lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. No other allegation was made apart from the allegation that attempts at reconciliation had failed. The respondent, by her answer filed on 26 September 1988, denied the allegations and the court ruled:
“In considering a petition for divorce, the court is required, pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 to inquire into the facts alleged as causing or leading to the breakdown of the marriage. The petitioner had satisfied the court of the fact in relation to the marriage as set out in s.
54(1)(b) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1967 in that the respondent was of such a character and personality and behaviour that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with her. The court was to examine the whole of the evidence placed before it including, and giving not inconsiderable weight to, the assertions of the parties and determine whether it can be said that in spite of the behaviour of the wife and the reaction to that behaviour of the husband, the marriage has not broken down irretrievably”.
[19] In his single petition for divorce, PH claimed that the said marriage had broken down irretrievably, the parties had lived apart (in separate bedrooms) for a continuous period of more than two years immediately prior to the filing of this single divorce petition where attempts at reconciliation had failed. As mandated under s. 53 and 54
[2019] 1 LNS 1976 Legal Network Series
of the LRA, I have enquired into the facts of the present case to determine the breakdown factors and find as follows:
(a) PH claimed that RW had behave in such a way that had been excessive, embarrassing, and abusive physically and mentally and any attempts at reconciliation had failed. She is of such a character, personality and behaviour that he could not reasonably be expected to continue living with her. These allegations were not rebutted by RW because she failed to be present at the trial though the hearing date had been given to offer her explanation and/or rebuttal evidence. She did not rebut the claim that she was abusive to her husband and other incidents 33- as set out in the tabulation at para 9 above by offering her explanation and/or rebuttal evidence.
(b) There is no denying in the present case that the parties had separated sometime in 2017 when she moved out of the master bedroom and they had been living apart even though under the same roof for more than two years prior to the filling of the single divorce petition by PH. All attempts at reconciliation during that period of separation had been futile;
(c) In Q.44- of his witness statement, PH stated that the reason for filling this divorce petition is premised on the allegations that he had been abused verbally and mentally. He went on further to claimed that RW is abusive towards him, his families, friends and business associates and he could no longer stay in an abusive marriage as it was affecting him, his family and his business;
(d) I find that the explanation in his witness statement was not challenged and therefore, it must be accepted as true and correct (see Ng Siew Lan v. John Lee Tsun Vui & Anor [2017] 2 CLJ
[2019] 1 LNS 1976 Legal Network Series
court is always seized of two side to a story and ultimately an election as to which story is to be believed must be made on the facts and circumstances of the case.
[20] Scrutinising the evidence of PH, considering the materials presented before me I find clearly the hostility and bitterness between the parties had not been resolved and/or receded. To say or argue otherwise would be a serious error in judgment. I am inclined on balance of probability to find that the marriage between the parties had indeed irretrievably broken down. Considering the foregoing, I find RW to have caused and contributed to the breakdown of the said marriage. I have examined the whole of the evidence placed before me and I hold without doubt that the present case had met the necessary criteria as required under s. 53 and 54 of the LRA and the marriage had indeed irretrievably broken down and I have ordered as such.
GUARDIANSHIP OF THE CHILD OF THIS MARRIAGE (“LJL”)