Court dismisses S'pore woman's protection order application against husband, rules his fantasies to kill her not abuse

A family court has dismissed a woman's personal protection order (PPO) application against her husband after ruling that his text messages about fantasies of wanting to kill her did not constitute emotional or psychological abuse.

She was also ordered to pay him S$1,500 in costs.

Grounds of decision

In her grounds of decision issued on Aug. 19, Magistrate Yvette Tay noted that the woman sent the man intimate photos of herself despite claiming she felt fear after he messaged her regarding his thoughts of wanting to kill her.

Tay said that in order to obtain a PPO, the applicant must establish two requirements on a balance of probabilities.

The first is that the respondent has committed or is likely to commit family violence on the person sought to be protected.

Secondly, the protection order is necessary for the protection or personal safety of the person to be protected under the order.

The judgement also defined family violence to include physical, sexual, or emotional or psychological abuse.

Married, estranged

It stated that the couple, who got married on Dec. 6, 2023, had been estranged since October 2024 and had not been living together since Oct. 1, 2024.

They also had not interacted or communicated since January 2025.

Prior to this, the couple fought on Sep. 30, 2024, where the woman hit her husband.

According to the judgement, he was injured and on Oct. 1, 2024, left the home and blocked his wife.

The man then obtained a PPO against his wife on Nov. 1, 2024, with consent.

Tay highlighted in her judgement that she did not find that the man had committed family violence against his wife on any of the five incidents between May 2024 and January 2025.

The woman alleged in her PPO application that four incidents constituted emotional or psychological abuse, and one was alleged to constitute physical abuse.

Between May, June 2024 incident

In an incident that took place sometime between May 2024 and June 2024, the woman alleged that the couple had a heated argument where her husband had hit her with his hands.

According to the judgement, the woman said she was walking around in circles, asking the man why he was "lying to her over something so small", and shouting at him.

She testified that she got "really close" to him, shouted and got hysterical.

Though the man whacked her on her arms out of possible frustration to make her come to her senses and stop, she did not suffer injuries or bruises and did not need to go to the doctor.

Dec. 29, 2024 incident

On Dec. 29, 2024, the man said in a Telegram message to his wife that he was "still in a somewhat unstable state of mind" but reminisced about the past and recalled the good times they had.

He added that he often felt angry and offended, alleging that she had become a monster and treated his life with callousness.

"I can tell you honestly that in the weeks/months leading up to my escape, I fantasise all the time about killing you. I think of all the various methods I can use to kill you," the message read.

According to the judgement, the woman said this message caused fear in her.

Jan. 1, 2025 incident

The woman also messaged the man, asking him not to ghost her, had "stuff to discuss" with him, and wanted to hear his thoughts.

Subsequently on Jan. 1, 2025, the man responded by saying that he felt he was slowly getting better and calmer and less angry after distancing himself from her for almost three months.

He added: "But now that I've resumed more frequent interactions with you, the thoughts of wanting to kill you are all coming back very strongly again. I really don’t want to talk to you too much, you are not good for my mental health."

About 20 minutes later, the woman responded with a lengthy message which Tay broke down into a few main points.

Woman's response

Firstly, the woman still wanted to talk and stay connected with the man, requesting for couple's counselling.

"Let's work on our marriage bbb. Remember why and how we fell in love," she said.

Secondly, she still wanted to travel overseas with him and was optimistic about it.

Thirdly, she was still able to make demands of him, saying it was his duty as her husband to provide for her and asked if he was still visiting for Chinese New Year as her family was still expecting him.

She also sent him intimate photos of herself, the judgement stated, which suggested she was not fearful of him.

Tay observed from this exchange that the woman did not appear to display signs of emotional or mental torment or harm caused by the man.

She also pointed out that the context and tenor of the man's message was not a threat to the woman.

It was, instead, an over-honest and misguided statement by the man attempting to explain that he did not actually want to talk to the woman as it was negatively affecting his mental health and state.

Application dismissed

In considering whether the PPO was necessary for the protection or personal safety of the woman, the judgement stated that both parties no longer lived together or communicated.

The man also said during trial that he was unwilling to engage the woman any further.

Even if family violence was committed, a PPO would not have been necessary for the woman's protection or personal safety, Tay said.

The likelihood of the man committing family violence against the woman in future was, in these circumstances, low.

As such, her PPO application was dismissed, with Tay ordering her to pay the man S$1,500 though his counsel sought costs of S$5,000.