A woman told a court yesterday that she had not imagined or misinterpreted an alleged sex attack in her home by her husband.

The 41-year-old Devonshire woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was accused in Magistrates' Court of mistaking her husband's actions when they got into a fight in their bedroom in December last year.

In cross-examination, defence lawyer Larry Scott suggested that his 28-year-old client - who denies a charge of sexual assault - had merely been trying to restrain her as she packed up her belongings and tried to leave in the early hours.

He said it was the defence's case that the woman had justifiably got upset when her husband did not return home until 6 a.m., and that she had become "enraged".

But Mr. Scott said at no time did the accused try to have sex with her, but was just simply trying to lift her off the floor and put her on the bed so they could talk.

He said: "I put it to you that my client's energies that morning were used to restrain your rage, justifiable as it may have been with all of your suspicions, but it was to restrain your rage, not to have sex with you.

"I put it to you that if my client had touched you on the arm and said `honey, let's talk', you would have taken that to mean he wanted sex. You would have interpreted any touch of your body as that.

"His actions were simply restraint. You were the aggressor. You were simply p****d off that night, weren't you?"

But the woman, who stayed calm and collected throughout the cross examination, vehemently denied the suggestions.

She admitted being upset and hurt, and said she did become afraid and traumatised, but told the court that she was tired of her husband arriving home so late and his "lies" and had had enough.

The court heard how the two began to row and she threw a bottle of perfume towards him, which missed, and then she started to pack her things to leave.

But then she claimed her husband tried to struggle with her, and she ended up on the floor, although she was uncertain whether she lost her balance and fell or if he had wrestled her to the ground.

There, she said he attempted to sexually assault her.

She said: "No. I would have not interpreted just any touch of me as a sexual advance. I could definitely have not been mistaken about his intentions.

"The whole incident did have something to do with sex."

The woman said her husband had an erect penis and was trying to enter her as she struggled to escape his grasp.

In a bid to make him stop, she said she grabbed his testicles as they fought.

She said: "Of course, he was in pain, but he did not stop what he was doing. We were both biting each other.

"It was not just a physical fight. I knew he was trying to have sex with me."

The woman said in a bid to try and escape her husband's alleged advances, while on the floor in her pyjamas, she managed to wiggle the bottom half of her body under the bed, so that he could not rape her.

But she told the court that her husband then tried to pull her out from under the bed by taking hold of the top of her underwear and pyjamas, which ultimately hurt her.

In an attempt to stop the pain, the woman told the court how she had tried to grab a pair of scissors on her dresser, which landed on the floor and which she then used to cut the material loose.

But Mr. Scott suggested to the woman that she had used the scissors to threaten his client, which had prompted him to say `are you going to stab me?'.

However, the woman denied she had threatened him, and said her husband had handed her the scissors after they had fallen on the floor and then asked `are you going to stab me?'

Mr. Scott said: "I put to you that your husband tried to get you off the floor by lifting you up, didn't he?

"When you both fell, he tried to lift you off the floor and put you on the bed so you could talk."

But the wife responded: "No. Unless he was using sign language with my pyjamas."

The case continues this afternoon and is being heard by Magistrate William Francis. Charmaine Smith is prosecuting for the Crown.