A man learned that one of his children was not actually his through a note attached to the windscreen of his car, a court was told.
The man, identified only as 'A' told the Family Court that he got married in 1996 and everything had been normal until May 2005 when he found attached to the windscreen of his car which said "Mohhok hemm, it-tifla mhix tieghek, it-tifla ta 'H' tal-pompa' - a reference to a nearby petrol station.
The man said that he had had three children, two sons and a daughter aged 10, 5 and three.
Initially, he did not give much importance to the note, as he felt it was written by somebody who wanted to create trouble.
However on March 20, 2006 he took his wife's car and on opening the luggage boot, he found two pictures and a note which read: H qed jghix ma L. Ser jibqghu jghixu flimkien.'
The pictures showed the petrol station where an employee whose name started with H was employed.
The man said the discovery reminded him of the note he found attached to his car. He then spoke to his wife, who grabbed the notes from his hand and tried to tear them up. A heated exchange ensued and his wife walked out with the children. She returned the following day with her uncle, who tried to persuade him that his suspicions were unfounded.
Another argument followed on April 6 and the wife again walked out, with her daughter. He phoned her and she admitted that the girl was not his daughter and her biological father was actually 'H' who worked at the petrol station.
She later repeated her admission before some of her relatives as well as their own sons.
The man said that despite the adultery, he used to urge his wife to return, but she refused. They continued to have arguments and police reports were filed.
Some three months after she left, the man said he saw her with a former boyfriend. He also found a letter written by her to H, complaining that he had been unfaithful but she had forgiven him.
The man denied claims made by his wife during mediation that he used to beat her up. He said had even had to change his work because she did not want him to work night shifts but wanted him at home.
The wife, identified as 'B' in a sworn statement declared that before their marriage, her future husband used to be violent. After the birth of their first son, she suffered post-natal depression. There were cases, while she was pregnant, when her husband assaulted her, but he helped her during her depression.
She suffered a deeper depression after the birth of their second son. During this time, frequent arguments flared and he turned violent.
She admitted having had an extra-marital affair which resulted in the birth of her daughter. She said she told her husband after after two years but she denied having had any affairs with another man, 'O'.
She said that arguments with her husband after she left home stemmed from the fact that she did not want him to see other women in the presence of their sons.
The court in its judgement noted that the man was alleging adultery and had complained that his wife had left the matrimonial home. The wife was saying that her husband was violent.
That there had been adultery was not disputed, as DNA tests on the daughter confirmed, the court said.
On examination of the evidence, the court said adultery was the main but not the only reason for the break-up of this marriage. Although violence by the husband could not be justified, it was adultery by the wife which was the initial cause of the break-up.
The court therefore held that the wife more responsible for the break up. The court therefore authorised the separation of assets and granted the man custody of his sons.