fc_judgments: 101
Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources
This data as json
| _id | _item_id | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 101 | 63ebf7c8334dd8117cedaa95d7daa3f9dee5d81d | [
"Family Law \u2013 Family violence \u2013 Orders for protection \u2013 Wife seeking protection continual harassment by husband \u2013 Application dismissed because protection order found not to be necessary"
] |
2024-10-07 | Family Court | SS No. 1094 of 2024 | XDV v XDW | [2024] SGFC 87 | https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F32454-SSP.xml | [
"The Wife and the Husband appeared in person."
] |
2024-11-14T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Kow Keng Siong | <root><head><title>XDV v XDW</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XDV <em>v</em> XDW </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32454-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 87</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">SS No. 1094 of 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">07 October 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Kow Keng Siong </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> The Wife and the Husband appeared in person. </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> XDV — XDW </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Family violence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Orders for protection</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Wife seeking protection continual harassment by husband</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Application dismissed because protection order found not to be necessary</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">7 October 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Kow Keng Siong:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 This concerns the Wife’s application for a personal protection order (“<b>PPO</b>”) for her two young daughters (born in 2019 and 2020) and herself. The Respondent is her Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 After a trial, I dismissed the Wife’s application.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 These are the reasons for my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Wife’s case</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 The PPO application was filed on 1 June 2024. During the trial, the Wife confirmed that she had made the application on the basis that the Husband had <em>continually harassed</em> her by sending various WhatsApp messages between 11 May 2024 to 11 June 2024. (“<b>Relevant Messages</b>”)</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 <b><em>Sexually explicit messages</em></b>. A perusal of the Relevant Messages revealed that on about <em>two occasions</em><span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> sometime on or after 11 May 2024, the Husband had sent messages to the Wife with the following contents:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_5-p2_a"></a>(a) Explicit messages which reminded the Wife of how the Husband had used to make her feel sexually.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_5-p2_b"></a>(b) Offensive messages which asked the Wife whether another man (whom the Husband believed to be the Wife’s lover) liked “our videos” and whether the two of them had engaged in sex.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_5-p2_c"></a>(c) Images of the Wife in undergarments and engaging in sexual acts.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_5-p2_d"></a>(d) Offensive messages which described the Wife as a “cum dump” and her pictures as “viral porno”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 <b><em>Messages relating to child access</em></b>. The Relevant Messages also contained messages from the Husband requesting to be given access, as well as photos/videos, of the daughters. There were also numerous “missed voice calls” and “missed audio calls” from the Husband on about <em>five days</em> – i.e., on or around 10, 18 and 19 May, as well as 10 and 11 June 2024. Presumably, these missed calls were in connection with the issue of child access as well.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Husband’s case</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 The Husband admitted to sending the Relevant Messages. He however contended that a PPO was not necessary as he did not intend to cause either the Wife or his daughters any harm. The Husband believed that the Wife had applied for a PPO to use as leverage in their custody battle for the daughters.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Other Alleged Incidents</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 For completeness, I wish to add that on the day of the trial, the Wife had wanted to admit evidence regarding several alleged incidents of family violence (“<b>Other Alleged Incidents</b>”) – from 2021 to 29 September 2024 – that were not documented in either (a) her complaint for PPO (“<b>C1</b>”) or (b) her “Attachment A” statement filed on 24 July 2024 for the purpose of the hearing (“<b>C2</b>”).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> Some of the Other Alleged Incidents were allegedly witnessed by 3<sup>rd</sup> parties and were also recorded on video.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 The Husband objected to the reference to Other Alleged Incidents at the trial.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 After considering the matter, I upheld the Husband’s objection.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_10-p2_a"></a>(a) In my view, the Wife can always make a separate PPO application regarding these incidents, if needed.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_10-p2_b"></a>(b) On the other hand, it will be highly prejudicial to the Husband if he had to respond to the Other Alleged Incidents without being given any sufficient opportunity to prepare his case against them: <em>Teng Cheng Sin v Law Fay Yuen</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2003] 3 SLR(R) 0356.xml')">[2003] 3 SLR(R) 356</a> at [19] and [20]; <em>Lai Kwok Kin</em> at [57]-[60]; <em>VFM v VFN</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26547-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 91</a> at [44]-[47]; <em>VAW v VAX</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25988-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 50</a> at [52] and [55]; <em>VYW v VYV</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27025-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 2</a> at [32] – [39]; <em>BCY v BCZ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2012] SGDC 0360.xml')">[2012] SGDC 360</a> at [6] – [9].</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Requirements for PPO</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 Section 65(1) of the Women’s Charter 1961 (“<b>Charter</b>”) states that –</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The court may, upon satisfaction on a balance of probabilities that <em>family violence has been committed </em><b><em>or </em></b><em>is likely to be committed against a family member</em> and that <em>it is necessary for the protection of the family member</em>, make a protection order restraining the person against whom the order is made from using family violence against the family member.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in bold and italics added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 On a plain reading of s 65(1), the Wife must prove two things on a balance of probabilities to obtain a PPO.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_a"></a>(a) <em>First</em>, the Wife must prove that the Husband had committed or is likely to commit “family violence” against the daughters and herself. (“<b>1<sup>st</sup> requirement</b>”)</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_b"></a>(b) <em>Second</em>, the Wife must also prove that a PPO “is necessary” for the protection of the daughters and herself. (“<b>2<sup>nd</sup> requirement</b>”)</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">My decision</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">1<sup>st</sup> requirement</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 In my view, the Wife had satisfied the 1<sup>st</sup> requirement for PPO.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_13-p2_a"></a>(a) The Husband admitted that he had sent the Relevant Messages.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_13-p2_b"></a>(b) By sending the Relevant Messages and making multiple calls to the Wife, the Husband had committed acts which fall within limb (d) of the definition of “family violence” in s 64 of the Charter. This limb defines “family violence” as “causing <em>continual</em> harassment with intent to cause or <em>knowing</em> that it is <em>likely to cause anguish</em> to a family member” (emphasis added).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_13-p2_c"></a>(c) The Husband had sent the Wife messages and images that were sexually explicit and humiliating. Given the contents of the Relevant Messages and the frequency in which he attempted to call her, the Husband must have known that they were “likely to cause anguish” to the Wife.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">2<sup>nd</sup> requirement</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 The next question is whether the Wife had also proved the 2<sup>nd</sup> requirement for PPO. In my view, the Wife had failed to do so. Let me explain.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Reasons and circumstances of family violence</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 In deciding whether a PPO “is necessary for the protection of the family member”, logically speaking, the reasons and circumstances in which the family violence is committed is an important consideration.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_a"></a>(a) This is evident from the fact that Parliament had specifically legislated for two circumstances where a PPO would not be appropriate. The first is where a respondent commits family violence while lawfully exercising his right in self-defence. The second situation is where the violence is committed by way of correction towards a child: see definition of “family violence” in s 64 of the Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_b"></a>(b) Apart from the circumstances prescribed in s 64, there can be other situations where a PPO may not be necessary. One example is where the family violence is triggered by a respondent’s momentary loss of self-control due to persistent and deliberate <em>provocation</em> by the applicant: see e.g., <em>VYR v VYS</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26982-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 128</a> at [44] and [45]. In such a case, the <em>cause</em> for the family violence is the <em>applicant</em> – not the respondent.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Reasons for the Relevant Messages </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 There were two reasons why the Husband had sent the Relevant Messages.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_a"></a>(a) <u>Sexually explicit messages</u>. At the material time, the Husband was very angry with the Wife for apparently having committed adultery while he was in a drug rehabilitation centre (“<b>DRC</b>”). It is clear from the messages that despite his anger, the Husband was prepared to forgive the Wife and reconcile with her.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_16-p2_b"></a>(b) <u>Messages relating to child access</u>. After his release from DRC (where he was detained for several months), the Husband missed his daughters dearly and wished very much to see them. The Husband had sent the messages because of his perception that the Wife was denying him reasonable access to his daughters.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">PPO is not necessary to protect the Wife</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 Having considered the Husband’s reasons for sending the Relevant Messages, I found that the <em>risk</em> of the Husband committing family violence against the Wife is <em>very low</em> and that a PPO is thus unnecessary.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_a"></a>(a) <em>First</em>, the Husband explained during the trial that he had sent the sexually explicit messages in “a moment of distress” – i.e., the unexpected realisation, after being released from DRC, that the Wife had apparently committed adultery. In my view, the circumstances that triggered such messages are unlikely to recur.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_b"></a>(b) <em>Second</em>, there is no evidence that the Husband had sent sexually explicit messages to harass the Wife either <em>before, or after</em>, the Relevant Messages.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> Indeed, when considered in the wider context together with <em>other messages</em> between the parties,<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> the Relevant Messages appear to an aberration in the Husband’s conduct. In all the other messages, the Husband had been very civil and reasonable towards the Wife. This was despite her having adopted an unfriendly tone in her messages.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_c"></a>(c) <em>Third</em>, after the Relevant Messages, the Husband (i) had since accepted the fact that his marriage with the Wife had irretrievably broken down, (ii) is in the process of preparing for a divorce, and (iii) is now focussing his attention on securing reasonable access to his daughters.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_d"></a>(d) The issue now is whether the Husband would continue to harass the Wife over the child access issue. In my view, this is unlikely.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_17-p2_d-p3_i"></a>(i) According to the Husband, he is placed on e-tagging until March 2025 and would be recalled to DRC if he were to get into trouble with the law. The Husband explained that he would not do anything to jeopardise his liberty and his custody battle for the daughters.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> I see no reason to disbelieve the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_17-p2_d-p3_ii"></a>(ii) Furthermore, I noted that since the sending of the Relevant Messages, the Husband had lawyered up. With the benefit of legal advice, the Husband is now aware of the boundaries of permissible conduct in securing access to his daughters.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">PPO is not necessary to protect the daughters</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 I now turn to whether a PPO is necessary to protect the daughters. In my view, the answer is clearly no.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_18-p2_a"></a>(a) As stated earlier, the Husband clearly loved his daughters. There is no evidence that he had committed prior acts of family violence against them. There is no reason why he would harm them in any way in future.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_18-p2_b"></a>(b) Despite his strong desire to see his daughters, it is clear to me that the Husband would not do anything that is against their interests – including putting them in a stressful situation. One of the clearest examples of this is the Husband’s message to the daughters’ school on 14 May 2024. In that message, the Husband specifically told the school that he had no intention to “defy [the Wife’s] wishes of keeping the children away” from him”. He added that the school should “carry on with [her] wishes as [he] value the children’s mental well-being during these troubling times and do not wish to interrupt their routine”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 For the above reasons, I dismissed the PPO application.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>The Wife’s “Documents and Evidence Checklist” dated 24 July 2024 (“<b>C2</b>”) at page 8 (12:05 pm to 1.11 am) and page 13 (1.12 am to 1.14 am).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>These incidents are described in exhibit <b>C3.</b></p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>As stated earlier, the Wife had wanted to admit evidence regarding several alleged incidents of family violence allegedly committed by the Husband from 2021 to 29 September 2024 that were not documented in either C1 or C2. None of these other incidents involved the sending of sexually explicit messages/images to the Wife.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>These messages are in R1.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>R1 at pages 25 to 31, and 40 to 43.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>See the letter from the Husband’s solicitors to the Wife’s solicitors at [5]. This letter is contained in the Husband’s “Documents and Evidence Checklist” dated 24 July 2024 (“<b>R1</b>”) at page 47.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>R1 at [8].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>R1 at page 14.</p></div></content></root> | 1838 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version