fc_judgments: 84
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 84 | 308b8a3d8e16b25ae380697ceeeb1da906b57ad1 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Family Violence",
"Family Law \u2013 Family Violence \u2013 Orders for protection",
"Family Law \u2013 Family Violence \u2013 Orders for protection \u2013 Personal protection order"
] |
2024-09-30 | Family Court | SS 836/2024 | XDL v XDM | [2024] SGFC 83 | 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%2F32241-SSP.xml | [
"The complainant in-person and unrepresented",
"The respondent in-person and unrepresented."
] |
2024-10-04T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>XDL v XDM</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XDL <em>v</em> XDM </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32241-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 83</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 836/2024</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">30 September 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"> Soh Kian Peng </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 complainant in-person and unrepresented; The respondent in-person and unrepresented. </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"> XDL — XDM </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Family Violence</span></p> <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></p> <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">Personal protection order</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">30 September 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> Magistrate Soh Kian Peng:</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 SS 836/2024 was the Husband’s application against the Wife for a personal protection order (“PPO”). I heard the trial on 3 September 2024 and dismissed the Husband’s application. These are the reasons for my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 In order to succeed in his application, the Husband had to show, on a balance of probabilities, that there was an act of family violence as defined in s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961, and that it was necessary for the PPO to be granted for his protection: s 65(1) of the Women’s Charter 1961; <em>WNU v WNV</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29868-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 18</a> at [10]; see also <em>XBC v XBD</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32020-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 63</a> at [6] – [14]. For ease of analysis, the definitions of family violence are set out below:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“family violence” means the commission of any of the following acts:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(a) wilfully or knowingly placing, or attempting to place, a family member in fear of hurt;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(b) causing hurt to a family member by such act which is known or ought to have been known would result in hurt;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(c) wrongfully confining or restraining a family member against his or her will;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(d) causing continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause anguish to a family member,</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">but does not include any force lawfully used in self-defence, or by way of correction towards a child below 21 years of age;</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 During the course of the trial, the Wife told me that she wanted to consent to the Husband’s application for a PPO.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 I could not accept this. The Wife had also said, in the same breath, that she wanted to do so out of a desire to get the matter over and done with. She hoped that the Husband would not create problems for her if she gave him what he wanted.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 There are serious consequences stemming from the grant of a PPO (see <em>CSW v CSX</em> [2024] SLR(FC) 204 at [14] citing <em>UNQ v UNR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25291-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGHCF 21</a>; <em>WNU v WNV</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29868-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 18</a> at [6]). I was not satisfied that the Wife fully appreciated this. I therefore proceeded to deal with the matter based on the evidence before me.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 A video was played in court. It had been recorded by the Husband on 3 April 2024. It showed that the Wife had slapped and scolded him. The Wife had also hurled several vulgarities at him, told him to “go kill himself”, and threatened to leave him for another man. The Wife does not dispute having done so in her testimony.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 The acts shown in the video speaks for itself. By slapping the Husband, I find that the Wife had committed an act which fell within the definition of limb (b) of family violence as set out in s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 These acts of family violence complained of stemmed from the problems which the Husband and Wife had encountered in their relationship. It was clear, from their testimony, that they were unable to resolve their conflicts in a healthy and productive manner. This led to frequent arguments which not only gave rise to the incidents of family violence complained of, but also caused the Wife to file for divorce.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 It is against this backdrop that I assessed the necessity of granting a PPO for the Husband’s protection, and arrived at the conclusion that it was not necessary to make such an order.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The Husband had testified that he had shifted out on 3 April 2024 and that he is no longer in contact with the Wife. He had also said that they had not been in contact since 22 August 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 The Wife had also given evidence that she wanted to, and had every intention of, cutting the Husband out from her life. She did not want any contact with the Husband. She had blocked him on social media as well as Whatsapp. She wanted nothing else to do with the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 It was clear to me, from the evidence, that neither the Husband, nor the Wife, has a desire to be in contact with the other. They have both set their lives on diverging paths. Given the distance and separation they have created between each other, in what appears to be an attempt to move on, there will be fewer opportunities (if at all) for conflict, which obviates the need for a PPO.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 I therefore dismissed the Husband’s application for a PPO in SS 836/2024 with no order as to costs.</p> </div></content></root> | 1812 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version