A man who admitted assaulting his wife at the family home in Gronant has been ordered not to approach her for the next three years.

Defendant Neil Gleave, 42, of Towyn Way West in Towyn, was said to have thrown a chocolate bar at his wife and was shouting angrily.

He was then said to be in her face and pushed her into a foot stool - and said he would hit her with an axe.

The defendant admitted assaulting Claire Gleave at Nant y Gro in Gronant on November 19.

At North East Wales Magistrates’ Court at Mold on Tuesday he was placed on a 12 month community order with 130 hours unpaid work.

He was placed on rehabilitation which District Judge Gwyn Jones said would challenge his attitudes.

A three year restraining order was put in place under which he is not to contact the victim directly or indirectly.

Child contact and property adjustment is to be arranged through the family court or solicitor.

The judge said that it was an unpleasant incident but sad he took into account that Gleave had no previous convictions.

Prosecutor Rhian Jackson told how the couple had been together 18 years and they had been married nine years.

She accepted that she had withdrawn money from his account and on November 19 there had been a row over the payment of bills and he was said to have flipped when the incident happened.

He was said to have dared her to call the police.

The prosecution claimed that he had slapped her to the face but that was not accepted in his basis of plea.

Peter Barnett, defending, said that his client accepted pushing her and making comments about an axe - but he did not mean it.

The complainant accepted that she had transferred money from the account on two separate occasions.

The restraining order was not opposed.

It was his name on the mortgage but he had voluntarily not attended at the property since and was living with his mother, the solicitor said.

He stressed that no injuries had been caused during the incident which he said had been caused by frustrations in his life.

A probation officer suggested that the defendant tried to minimise events and would benefit from probation intervention because of elements of controlling and coercive behaviour.