SHE was the sole breadwinner of the family, yet he wanted her to account for every cent of her expenditure “in the form of a spreadsheet”.

Absolutely not “a single cent” should go to her family.

When she was involved in two accidents while in the US, she said he did not show any concern.

Even her cooking was not good enough. He preferred his mother’s cooking.

During cross-examination, she said there was once when she spent several hours cooking chicken curry for him.

But when he woke up and tasted the curry, he described it as “pig swill”. He yelled until she broke down and cried.

The husband denied this, and even produced in court a photo of him “eating and enjoying her cooking”.

Then there were the “mood swings and violent outbursts”.

She cited an incident in October 2003 in the US when he charged down the stairs towards her after a quarrel, raised his fists inches from her face, shouted, and jumped up and down.

She thought that he was going to kill her.

Irritable

But in court, the husband denied that he was unreasonable towards his wife.

He said that he may have been irritable or annoyed, but was never violent and had not abused or threatened her.

In granting the divorce in May this year, District Judge Tan Peck Cheng noted that the wife had shown e-mails and online conversations in which “(the husband) berated, abused and humiliated her”.

The judge also took into account the evidence of the wife’s friend.

Her friend testified that the husband had ridiculed his wife in front of him when he visited them in May 2002 in the US.

He testified that the husband told his wife that she was “stupid” for making an “illogical” choice not to eat beef, even though he knew it was because of her religious beliefs.

During his appeal, the husband argued that his wife’s friend was biased against him and had a “special interest” in helping his wife.

He also argued that the e-mails should not have been accepted as evidence because he was not cross-examined on them.

But Justice Chao Hick Tin wrote that he should have cross-examined his wife if he wished to challenge this evidence.

Justice Chao added: “Indeed, by not challenging or explaining himself in relation to what he had stated in those e-mails, the court was entitled to take it that he had no explanation for his conduct.”

‘Exhausted wife’s patience’

The husband further appealed on the basis that the District Judge did not consider his depression.

He argued that his condition had affected his actions towards his wife.

But Justice Chao pointed out that the husband “never claimed that his behaviour was due to depression” during the trial.

The husband also contended that he had been acting like that since the start of the marriage, and there was no reason why his wife could not put up with him when she had done so in the past.

In dismissing the husband’s appeal, Justice Chao said: “To my mind, that fact spoke more of the wife’s patience rather than any redeeming feature on the husband’s part.

“While I was unable to pinpoint the straw that finally broke the camel’s back, it was obvious that the wife’s patience had been exhausted by the cumulative effect of his taunts and abuses over the years and the realisation that there was hardly any prospects of the husband mending his ways.”

This article was first published in The New Paper.