fc_judgments: 95

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
95 da258b75f38bb8eaa25fd26287e431ea443d35aa 
[
    "Family Law \u2013 Family violence \u2013 Orders for protection \u2013 Cross-applications \u2013 Approach to assessing whether family violence under the \u201ccontinual harassment\u201d limb in s 64 of the Women\u2019s Charter 1961 is likely to be committed",
    "Evidence \u2013 Admissibility of evidence \u2013 Admission of further evidence during trial for personal protection order",
    "Evidence \u2013 Proof of evidence \u2013 Both applicants for personal protection orders alleging that the other party has committed multiple acts of family violence \u2013 Whether a court must assess the credibility of each of these allegations before determining whether to issue personal protection orders",
    "Evidence \u2013 Proof of evidence \u2013 Evidential value of police reports in proceedings for personal protection orders"
]
 2024-10-25 Family Court SS No. 864 of 2024 & SS No. 867 of 2024 XEP v XEQ [2024] SGFC 95 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%2F32394-SSP.xml 
[
    "Wife and Husband in person."
]
 2024-11-01T16:00:00Z[GMT] Kow Keng Siong <root><head><title>XEP v XEQ</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XEP <em>v</em> XEQ </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32394-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 95</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. 864 of 2024 &amp; SS No. 867 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">25 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"> Wife and Husband 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"> XEP — XEQ </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">Cross-applications</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Approach to assessing whether family violence under the “continual harassment” limb in s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961 is likely to be committed</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Evidence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Admissibility of evidence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Admission of further evidence during trial for personal protection order</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Evidence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Proof of evidence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Both applicants for personal protection orders alleging that the other party has committed multiple acts of family violence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Whether a court must assess the credibility of each of these allegations before determining whether to issue personal protection orders</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Evidence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Proof of evidence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Evidential value of police reports in proceedings for personal protection orders</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">25 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       A personal protection order (“<b>PPO</b>”) and domestic exclusion order (“<b>DEO</b>”) can be issued if, among others, a person has committed or is likely to commit family violence against a family member. Parties in cross-applications for such orders filed various police reports accusing each other of having committed such violence on multiple occasions. Must the court determine whether family violence has been committed on <em>each</em> of these occasions in considering whether to issue a PPO/DEO?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2       This issue arose in SS No. 843 of 2024 (“<b>Wife’s application</b>”) and SS 867 of 2024 (“<b>Husband’s application</b>”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3       The Husband and Wife were married in 2007. They have a 15-year-old daughter (D.O.B: 13 July 2009). In April 2024, the Wife commenced divorce proceedings. About one month thereafter, the parties made the following applications:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="7.43851229754049%"><col width="18.6962607478504%"><col width="33.0333933213357%"><col width="21.9756048790242%"><col width="18.8562287542492%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Application</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Order sought</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Person sought to be protected</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Respondent</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="2" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">(a)</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="2" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">Wife’s application</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">PPO</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="2" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">Wife</p> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">Daughter</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="2" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">Husband</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">DEO for Wife’s bedroom<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span></p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">(b)</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">Husband’s application</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">PPO</p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">Husband</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="middle"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1">Wife</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4       The incidents of family violence were alleged to have occurred in the parties’ matrimonial home (“<b>Flat</b>”).</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Legal requirements</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5       Before analysing the evidence, it is useful to summarise the requirements for granting a PPO/DEO.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">1<sup>st</sup> requirement</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6        <em>First</em>, the applicant must prove that the respondent has committed or is likely to commit “family violence” against the person(s) sought to be protected. Under s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961 (“<b>Charter</b>”), “family violence” covers the following types of conduct:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_a"></a>(a)     Wilfully or knowingly placing, or attempting to place, a family member in fear of hurt.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_b"></a>(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-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_c"></a>(c)     Wrongfully confining or restraining a family member against his or her will.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_d"></a>(d)     Causing continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause anguish to a family member. To prove family violence under this limb, the following must be established:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_6-p2_d-p3_i"></a>(i)       The respondent has committed “harassment” – i.e., an act of annoying or worrying the applicant by putting pressure on him/her or saying or doing unpleasant things to him/her.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_6-p2_d-p3_ii"></a>(ii)       The harassment is “continual” – i.e., repeated, repetitive.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_6-p2_d-p3_iii"></a>(iii)       The respondent has continually harassed the applicant intending or knowing that it is likely to cause the latter to suffer “anguish” – i.e., severe pain, mental suffering, or unhappiness.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> Thus, repetitive conduct that causes worry, emotional distress or annoyance can amount to “continual harassment”: see e.g., <em>Yue Tock Him v Yee Ee Lim</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2011] SGDC 0099.xml')">[2011] SGDC 99</a> (“<b><em>Yue Tock Lim</em></b>”) at [33].</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">2<sup>nd</sup> requirement</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7        <em>Second</em>, the applicant must prove that a PPO/DEO “is necessary”. One way of assessing whether this requirement has been proved is to ask the following question – <em>Is family violence likely to occur in future against the person(s) sought to be protected?</em> If the answer is “no”, a PPO/DEO will not be appropriate even if family violence has been committed. An example where a PPO was denied for this reason is <em>XDV v XDW</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32454-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 87</a> at [13] to [18].</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">My decision</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Orders made</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8       I now return to the Wife’s and Husband’s applications.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9       At the end of a trial –</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_a"></a>(a)     I found that the Wife and Husband were likely to continually harass each other, and that it was necessary to issue a protection order. Accordingly, I allowed (i) the Husband’s application and (ii) the Wife’s application (to protect herself).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_9-p2_b"></a>(b)     I found that the Wife had failed to satisfy the requirements for a PPO/DEO to protect the Daughter from the Husband. Accordingly, I declined to make any such order against the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10     I will now explain my decision. For a start, I wish to state that during the trial, the parties had made many accusations of family violence against each other. In this judgement, I will focus only on those accusations that are material to my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">1<sup>st</sup> requirement – Family violence likely to be committed</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">1 May 2024 incident</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11     I begin with an incident that occurred on 1 May 2024 (“<b>1 May incident</b>”). Both parties relied on this incident to support their respective application.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12     The 1 May incident was recorded on video.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> This video revealed that for about 20 mins, <em>each party</em> had knowingly harassed each other. In the video –</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_a"></a>(a)     The Husband and Wife could clearly be seen recording each other during their altercation – while concurrently and repeatedly accusing each other of provocation. This is a highly provocative conduct: <em>VWT v VWS</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26733-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 111</a> at [36].</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_b"></a>(b)     The Wife could be observed raising her voice and repeatedly confronting the Husband – even when the latter walked away from her.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_c"></a>(c)     The Husband could be seen entering and remaining in the Wife’s and Daughter’s shared bedroom – despite being repeatedly told that he was invading their privacy and that he was to leave the room.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_d"></a>(d)     The Husband could be seen repeatedly telling the Wife that she was prohibited from entering his bedroom and using its ensuite toilet – despite the latter being upset by this prohibition.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_12-p2_e"></a>(e)     The Husband could also be seen telling the Wife that she was a mere occupier in the Flat and that she had no right to stay there legally.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Other incidents</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13     The 1 May incident is not an isolated incident of harassment between the parties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14     It is not disputed that there is <em>deep and long-standing animosity</em> between them. During their marriage, the parties have filed numerous police reports accusing each other of having committed family violence.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_14-p2_a"></a>(a)     Back in 2013, the Wife filed a police report accusing the Husband of hitting her head. In 2018, she accused him of hitting her clavicle. In 2019, the Wife applied for a PPO against the Husband. (This application was subsequently withdrawn.) The evidence showed that the Wife had no qualms in summoning the Police to intervene in her altercations with the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_14-p2_b"></a>(b)     Between December 2023 to early October 2024 (11 months), the Husband filed 31 police reports against the Wife for abusive, threatening, and harassing conduct committed against him. The Police had classified the incidents in four of these reports under the Protection from Harassment Act 2014.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15     I pause to make a few observations regarding the evidential value of police reports in PPO/DEO proceedings.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_a"></a>(a)     The filing of a police report and the offence classification of the report by the Police do not prove that the act alleged in the report has been committed. This is because a police report is a self-interested statement, and its contents have not been tested in court.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_b"></a>(b)     The filing of a police report <em>per se</em> does not constitute harassment of the person complained against in the report: <em>Yue Tock Lim</em> at [80] to [83]; <em>GFS</em> at [61]. A contrary view can have the undesirable effect of deterring a person from genuinely reporting a wrongdoing or seeking police assistance.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_15-p2_c"></a>(c)     However, where <em>both</em> parties <em>repeatedly</em> file police reports against each other, then one cannot exclude the possibility that they could have done so to improperly cause the other party to be investigated (and thus be harassed) in a game of tit-for-tat.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Wife’s request to admit further evidence</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16     At the trial, the parties wanted to refer to some of the allegations of family violence in [14] above. In fact, the Wife had requested to admit <em>further</em> evidence – in the form of three videos – to support her case.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17     I disallowed the Wife’s request. My reasons are as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_a"></a>(a)     As a starting point, the evidence in a PPO trial should be confined to those that support or rebut the allegations of family violence contained in an applicant’s complaint.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_b"></a>(b)     If there are good reasons to depart from the starting position, then notice to admit the further evidence must be given as soon as possible. It is important that the other party (i) is not taken by surprise and (ii) has sufficient opportunity to respond to the further evidence: <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 v Teo Zien Jackson</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/25309-SSP.xml')">[2020] 5 SLR 389</a> (“<b><em>Lai Kwok Kin</em></b>”) 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-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_c"></a>(c)     In this case, the Wife’s request to admit the further evidence was belated. It was made (i) more than three months after the matter was fixed for trial, (ii) during the second tranche of the hearing, and (iii) while the Husband was being cross-examined.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_d"></a>(d)     There is no evidence that the Wife had given advance notice of her request to admit further evidence to the Husband. To admit the further evidence in such circumstances is highly prejudicial to him.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_e"></a>(e)     Furthermore, the Husband shared that he had refrained from admitting further video evidence <em>of his own</em> to rebut the Wife’s case (when she testified at the first tranche of hearing about six weeks earlier) and to support his case. This was because he did not want to prolong the trial. However, if the Wife was permitted to admit the three videos, then he should also be allowed to admit his video evidence. In my view, the admission of further evidence by both parties in such haphazard circumstances is not desirable. If discipline is not imposed in the admission of further evidence, then a PPO trial can descend into chaos and end up being protracted. This is not in anyone’s interests.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_f"></a>(f)     Finally, my decision to disallow the admission of further evidence did not prejudice the Wife. This is because I had eventually acceded to her request for a PPO and DEO.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Whether there is a need to assess each allegation of family violence</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18     I take this opportunity to address a related issue – i.e., in cases where parties in cross-applications for PPO allege that the other party has committed multiple acts of family violence, must a court assess the credibility of <em>each</em> allegation in determining whether the 1<sup>st</sup> requirement for PPO is proved?</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19     In my view, the answer is no.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_a"></a>(a)     On a plain reading, all that s 65(1) needs to be proved (for the 1<sup>st</sup> requirement) is that “family violence has been committed <em>or is likely to be committed</em> against a family member”. [emphasis added] In other words, the 1<sup>st</sup> requirement can be met if an applicant can prove that family violence “is likely to be committed” – there is no need for him/her to prove that such violence has in fact been committed prior to the PPO application.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_b"></a>(b)     Apart from s 65(1), there are also good reasons why, in principle, a court should not be obliged to make findings as to whether family violence has been committed for every allegation raised by the parties.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_19-p2_b-p3_i"></a>(i)       The purpose of a PPO is <em>not to punish</em> a party for past acts of such violence: <em>Lai Kwok Kin</em> at [38]; <em>Yue Tock Him</em> at [10]; <em>GFS v GFT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29939-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 21</a> (“<b><em>GFS</em></b>”) at [31]; <em>WSD v WSE</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30956-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 1</a> at [1]; <em>UMI v UMK</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/21871-SSP.xml')">[2018] SGFC 53</a> at [37] to [39].</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_19-p2_b-p3_ii"></a>(ii)       Instead, a PPO is “<em>pre-emptive</em>” in purpose – i.e., it protects an applicant from <em>future</em> family violence. If there are reasonable grounds to believe that an applicant is in danger of family violence, then a PPO should be issued even if such violence has not been committed on the applicant previously.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_19-p2_b-p3_iii"></a>(iii)       Additionally, in the case of cross-complaints involving parties in a highly acrimonious relationship, there is a real risk of the parties expecting the court to adjudicate on who was “right” or “wrong” regarding their past differences. A PPO trial is not a forum to settle personal scores. There is little utility in expending court resources to scrutinise each allegation of family violence when it is already clear from the evidence or from a party’s conduct in court that he/she is ready to engage in escalatory “tit-for-tat” for the most minor slight perceived from the other party.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20     To sum up – in view of [12] to [14] above, I am satisfied that the Husband and Wife are likely to cause continual harassment knowing that it is likely to cause anguish to the other party.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">2<sup>nd</sup> requirement – Protection orders are necessary</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21     I now come to the 2<sup>nd</sup> requirement. In my view, a PPO/DEO is “necessary” in the present case. My reasons are as follows.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_a"></a>(a)     Once it is proved that family violence “is likely to be committed”, then it must logically follow that a PPO is necessary to protect an applicant from such violence. In other words, a PPO is <em>presumptively</em> necessary: <em>Lai Kwok Kin</em> at [39].</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_b"></a>(b)     To displace this presumption, a respondent will have the <em>burden</em> of adducing evidence to prove that a PPO is in fact not necessary to protect the applicant. If the respondent fails to discharge this evidential burden, then a PPO ought to be issued.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_c"></a>(c)     In the present case, the parties have failed to displace the presumption that a PPO/DEO is necessary. In fact, the evidence shows otherwise:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_21-p2_c-p3_i"></a>(i)       As stated earlier, there is a deep and long-standing animosity between the parties. They are still living together and the Wife is unemployed. This means that the risk of friction between them is very real.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_21-p2_c-p3_ii"></a>(ii)       Just one month after the Wife commenced divorce proceedings in April 2024, both parties promptly applied for PPO/DEO against each other. <em>After</em> these applications were filed, the Husband had made 10 police reports against the Wife.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_21-p2_c-p3_iii"></a>(iii)       Each party have resorted to recording the other party’s conduct during their arguments. Such acts can escalate the tension between the parties.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_21-p2_c-p3_iv"></a>(iv)       The Husband’s conduct in [12(e)] above suggests that he believed that he was entitled to evict the Wife – despite the Flat being their matrimonial home. A DEO is necessary to make it clear that the Husband is not to either (1) intrude into the privacy of the bedroom of his estranged Wife or (2) evict her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22     To summarise – I have found that the Wife and Husband are likely to continually harass each other, and that a PPO/DEO is necessary for their protection. Accordingly, I allowed (a) the Husband’s application and (b) the Wife’s application (to protect herself).</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">PPO application for the Daughter</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Requirements not met</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23     I now come to the Wife’s application for a PPO to protect the Daughter from the Husband. I have declined to make the order. This is because in general, the Wife’s accusations that the Husband had committed family violence against the Daughter (a) are sweeping in nature, (b) lack particulars (such as time and place of the alleged violence), (c) do not fit the definition of “family violence”, and (d) are not borne out by the evidence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24     Let me give an example. During the trial, the Wife alleged that the Husband had “scolded” the Daughter during the 1 May incident. According to her, this scolding is recorded in the video. The Wife’s claim is contradicted by the video.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> It showed that at all material times during the 1 May incident, the Husband did not scold or behave in a threatening manner to the Daughter. On the contrary, whenever he spoke to her, the Husband was gentle – at times calling her “princess”.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Wife’s request for the Daughter to testify</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25     During the trial, the Wife requested that the Daughter be allowed to testify that she had felt threatened by the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26     I rejected this request. My reasons are as follows.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_26-p2_a"></a>(a)     In the video relating to the 1 May incident, the Daughter did not appear to be fearful of the Husband. In fact, she was outspoken and can clearly be seen to be confronting him regarding his decisions that she disagreed with.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_26-p2_b"></a>(b)     The Wife had tendered two handwritten notes from the Daughter dated 13 and 14 June 2024.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> It is also evident from these notes that the Daughter was not fearful of the Husband. In fact, she had levelled several accusations against him, including of him lying and “defaming” the Wife and her. The Daughter even threatened to call the Police if the Husband were to allege that the Wife had instigated her.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_26-p2_c"></a>(c)     Based on the tone and contents of her notes, it is not clear to me that the Daughter can be an objective witness. She seems to be siding with the Wife and parroting language that had been used by the latter. (See e.g., the Wife’s statement dated 27 August 2024 where the Wife accused of the Husband of “defaming” her.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span>) It is not disputed that the Daughter occupied the same bedroom with the Wife at all material times. In the circumstances, I cannot discount the possibility that the Wife might have alienated the Daughter against the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_26-p2_d"></a>(d)     Finally, and in any event, I am of the view that it would not be in the Daughter’s interests to testify. Because of the acrimonious situation at home, she was already seeing a school counsellor. The Daughter should not be placed in a situation where she needs to – as a witness – take sides between her parents at the trial.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27     The above are the reasons for my decision in the Wife’s and Husband’s applications.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28     Before concluding, I wish to convey the following <em>directly to the parties</em>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_a"></a>(a)     You should not see the PPO/DEO made against each of you as “punishment” for your past conduct or as a judgement of your character. You should also not view the making of these orders as a sign that you have either “won” or “lost”.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_b"></a>(b)     You live in a combined house consisting of two HDB units. You have ample living space. Keep out of each other’s way. Stop turning the home into a battleground for your contest of wills.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_c"></a>(c)     It is an offence to contravene the orders that I have made. In other words, moving forward, you are not to commit any act can comes within the definition of family violence in [6] above.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_d"></a>(d)     If you intentionally or knowingly contravene the order(s), then you can be arrested by the Police and be punished with a fine and/or imprisonment.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_e"></a>(e)     The PPO/DEO is purely a shield for your protection. Do not turn it into a sword by using it to provoke family violence. If you do so, the law will not be sympathetic to your cause.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_f"></a>(f)     Finally, your acrimony towards each other affects your daughter. She will be taking her “O” level examinations in about a year. If you truly love your daughter – demonstrate this with concrete actions. Keep the peace in your home. Do not drag her into your domestic fray.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>In her Complaint (exhibit C1), the Wife had requested for the Husband to be excluded from her bedroom and the “kitchen toilet”. By the time of the hearing, the Wife had moved into one of the master-bedrooms which has its own toilet.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>See definition of “harassment” in the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries online, accessible at – https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>See definition of “continual” in the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries online, accessible at – https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>See definition of “anguish” in the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries online, accessible at – https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Exhibit C4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>The police reports are at exhibits R3.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Exhibit C4.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Exhibit C3.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Exhibit C2.</p></div></content></root> 1838

Links from other tables