fc_judgments: 98
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 98 | 8cac6cb360a5f590a6e3c66bbd7e5c4757379617 | [
"Family Law \u2013 Family Violence",
"Family Law \u2013 Family Violence \u2013 Orders for protection"
] |
2024-10-09 | Family Court | SS 972/2024 | XEZ v XFA | [2024] SGFC 96 | 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%2F32407-SSP.xml | [
"The plaintiff in-person and unrepresented",
"the defendant in-person and unrepresented."
] |
2024-11-08T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Soh Kian Peng | <root><head><title>XEZ v XFA</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XEZ <em>v</em> XFA </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32407-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 96</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 972/2024</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">09 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"> 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 plaintiff in-person and unrepresented; the defendant 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"> XEZ — XFA </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></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">9 October 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 972/2024 was the Wife’s application against the Husband for a personal protection order (“PPO”). The Wife also sought a PPO for her two sons: [A], who is 19 years old, and [B], who is 13 years old.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 I heard the trial over two days in the months of September and October. Having heard the evidence and considered the matter, I dismissed the Wife’s application. These are the reasons for my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 To obtain a PPO, it is trite law that the applicant must prove the following two elements on a balance of probabilities (<em>CSW v CSX</em> [2024] SLR(FC) 204; <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27616-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 47</a> at [26] citing <em>UNQ v UNR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25291-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGHCF 21</a>). First, that “family violence has been committed or is likely to be committed”:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">s 65(1) of the Women’s Charter 1961. As to what family violence is, that is defined in s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961 which states:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-2">“family violence” means the commission of any of the following acts:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(a) wilfully or knowingly placing, or attempting to place, a family member in fear of hurt;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(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-3">(c) wrongfully confining or restraining a family member against his or her will;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">(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_4"></a>4 In addition to this, the second element an applicant must also establish is that the PPO is necessary for their protection.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 The Wife relies on the following two incidents in support of her application for a PPO for herself and her two sons.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The first incident took place on the 16<sup>th</sup> of May 2024. This was the Wife’s evidence as to what had happened.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 On that day, the Wife realised that she had run out of condensed milk. The Husband said that he would give her money to buy some condensed milk. The Wife told her younger son, [B], to take the Husband’s card and she would head out to purchase a tin of condensed milk.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 The Wife complained about having to go through so much difficulty to get some milk for her tea. She began to talk disrespectfully to the Husband. This provoked the Husband. He responded in a disrespectful manner, and also raised his hand in a fist towards her – though he did not hit her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 The Husband then angrily kicked a plastic vase. There was a remote control, amongst other items, in the plastic vase. The contents of the plastic vase scattered all over the floor.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The Wife called the police. They arrived on the scene and took their statements. The Wife explained that in the police statement, she had said that the remote control in the plastic vase had hit her – this was inaccurate – none of the items contained in the vase had hit her when the Husband kicked it.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 The Husband’s evidence was materially the same. He explained that the Wife was kicking up a fuss over not being able to get condensed milk. The Wife had asked [B] to purchase a tin. The Husband told [B] that he did not have cash, and gave [B] his ATM card instead.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 The Wife was still unhappy. She continued to complain. Frustrated, the Husband confronted her. He pointed his finger at her and asked: “I give you money already why you still making noise”. In his anger, he kicked the plastic vase, but he did not see if anything had hit the Wife because it was dark. The Husband explained that he was angry because the Wife had kept nagging at him even after he had given [B] his ATM card to go buy some condensed milk.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 I had also heard evidence from [B] who had witnessed the quarrel between his parents. He said that he saw the Husband shouting at the Wife. He also said that he saw that the Husband looked like he was going to hit the Wife, but he did not do so.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 I turn now to the second incident complained of. This took place on 13 September 2023. The Wife’s evidence was that she had gotten into an argument with the Husband over phone calls made by his family members. She said that the Husband’s family members had been asking about her visa status. She told the Husband to cut off all contact with his family members.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 The Husband refused and shouted at her. A heated argument ensued. The Wife says that she could not bear being shouted at loudly and fainted. When she came to, she realised that she had been sent to hospital via ambulance. She told the doctors and nurses that she did not want to go back as she was afraid.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The Wife says that she did not want to create trouble for the medical staff. She asked to be discharged and went to the police station.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 The Husband’s evidence is, once again, materially similar. He said that there was a dispute between the two of them. The Wife was unhappy that he was still keeping in touch with his family members.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 He had asked for the Wife’s brother to be present, so as to help mediate their dispute. The Husband said that the Wife kept nagging at him. He told her in a loud tone to wait – this caused the Wife to faint. His elder son, [A], called the ambulance.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 [B] also gave evidence in relation to this incident. He said that he could not remember all that much, though he did see the Wife faint. He said that he called the ambulance, although the Husband had told him not to do so because it was not a serious issue.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 In my judgment, the Husband had not committed any acts that fell within the definition of family violence as set out in s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961 in both incidents that the Wife had complained of.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 In relation to the incident that took place on 16 May 2024, the Wife has not shown, on a balance of probabilities, that the Husband had indeed raised a fist towards her during the course of their heated argument. I place little weight on her account of events that took place on that day.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 For one, there was a discrepancy between what the Wife had said in the police report dated 19 May 2024, and what she had subsequently said in her testimony. In that report, the Wife says that Husband had kicked the plastic vase – there was a remote in the plastic vase which flew out and hit her in the stomach. In her testimony during trial, however, the Wife stated that the remote control had never made contact with her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 It bears noting that this discrepancy is found in a police report made when the events were still fresh in the Wife’s mind. That there was such a discrepancy in the contemporaneous record of the incident cast doubt on the veracity of the tale which the Wife had told (for the general evidential value of a police report in the context of a PPO trial, see <em>XEP v XEQ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32394-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 95</a>).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 Compounding this was the fact that the Wife only clarified that the remote control never hit her when I had asked her about it. Prior to this, the Wife’s testimony had only focussed on what the Husband had allegedly done during the quarrel – which was to raise his fist towards her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 I add that although [B] had given evidence that the Husband “looked like he was about to hit” the Wife, I do not place much weight on his evidence. Having seen [B] in person and heard his testimony, I cannot discount the fact that his recollection of events might have been influenced by the Wife – indeed the Husband had testified that the Wife was trying to alienate both his sons from him.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 Even taking the Wife’s case at its highest, and assuming that the Husband did raise his fist at her, this act would not, in my judgment, fall within the definition of family violence, specifically, limb (a) of s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961 (see above at [3]). The act complained of had taken place amidst a heated quarrel – if the Husband had indeed raised his fist, it was likely an expression of his frustration rather than an attempt to place the Wife in fear of hurt (to borrow the language of limb (a) of the definition of family violence in s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 The Wife has thus failed to show, on a balance of probabilities, that there was an act of family violence committed towards her on the 16<sup>th</sup> of May 2024. The Wife has also not shown that the Husband had committed an act of family violence towards either of his two sons – indeed, this incident merely concerned a quarrel between the Husband and the Wife.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 I turn now to the second incident which took place on 13 September 2023. Again, the Wife has not shown that the Husband had committed family violence. It is undisputed that there was a heated quarrel between the both of them, and that the Wife had fainted.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 In assessing whether there had been an act of family violence, it is also important to consider the context in which those acts took place. In the course of a heated argument, tempers may flare, and voices may be raised. This was, in my judgment, exactly what had happened during this incident that had taken place on 13 September 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 Therefore, the Husband’s act of shouting, or raising his voice at the Wife in the course of a heated quarrel, when viewed in its proper context, does not constitute family violence as is defined in s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 I add that, given that neither of the two sons were involved in this incident, I do not find that the Husband had committed an act of family violence towards them.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 In addition, I also find that the Wife had not shown that family violence was <em>likely</em> to be committed on her, or her two sons. The two incidents complained of were, in my judgment, examples of disputes that may arise between couples. There was no evidence to show that the Husband was a violent or abusive man – indeed, the evidence pointed to the opposite conclusion.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 For one, the Wife had given evidence that when [A] was in kindergarten, the Husband had hit him for leaving toys on the ground. She intervened and told the Husband to not hit their children. The Husband had listened and refrained from hitting them since.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 In this vein, the Wife’s own account was that she had a loving relationship with the Husband until her mother had passed away in 2019. She told me that she would work out her differences with her Husband by talking. She shared that while they had little in terms of material wealth, that was fine since they had each other and were able to make compromises. However, since her mother’s passing, she felt that the Husband’s own family was trying turn him against her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 Viewed in this light, the inference which I drew was that the Wife has had difficulty coping with, and moving on from her mother’s passing. She became increasingly paranoid – indeed, throughout her testimony and oral closing submissions, she emphasised repeatedly that the Husband’s family was trying to turn him against her, and that she did not have anyone else for support. Consequently, this changed the dynamic of her relationship with her Husband, giving rise to quarrels that formed the basis for her application for a PPO.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 Yet despite the currently strained relationship between the Wife and her Husband, I can find no evidence that the Husband had, or is likely to commit family violence. Indeed, the Wife has not, apart from the two incidents complained of, made any other allegations towards the Husband, nor has she put any other evidence before me to suggest that the Husband is indeed likely to commit family violence against her or her two sons. In other words, the Wife has simply failed to discharge her burden of proof (see above at [3]).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 Given that the Wife had not established the first requirement, that family violence had been, or was likely to be committed against herself, or [A] and [B], her application for a PPO must fail.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 I thus dismissed the Wife’s application in SS 972/2024 with no order as to costs.</p> </div></content></root> | 1835 |
Links from other tables
- 2 rows from _item in fc_judgments_version