XSF v XSG

Facts

The wife applied in the Family Court in SS No 2093 of 2024, filed in November 2024, for a personal protection order (PPO) and a domestic exclusion order (DEO) against the husband. The parties married in May 2014, have three young children and are now Singapore citizens who own a flat in Singapore. After the marriage broke down in 2024 they became involved in bitter divorce and child proceedings in Singapore and Malaysia. The wife moved out of the family home in Malaysia on 29 September 2024 and in November 2024 came to Singapore with the two elder children, while the husband stayed in Malaysia with the youngest.

The wife relied on a series of incidents: a December 2019 assault in which her phone was smashed; a scuffle at her parents' home on 14 June 2024; being pushed out of a room and having her phone thrown from the second storey on 6 July 2024; being kicked off the bed on 19 September 2024; the husband blocking her car on 3 October 2024; and, she claimed, months of pressure to sell the Singapore flat, including threats involving the youngest child and access to her email to write to her prospective employers. The husband denied or explained most incidents and said the wife fabricated stories. The court heard the matter on 20 February 2025 and 11 March 2025 and gave its decision on 25 March 2025. The husband appealed in HCF/DCA 44 of 2025, and these are the grounds.

Issues

1. Whether the husband had committed family violence against the wife under the pre-amendment Women's Charter
2. Whether a personal protection order was necessary for the wife's protection
3. Whether a domestic exclusion order was also needed

Holding

The court allowed the application in part: it granted a PPO in favour of the wife and dismissed her application for a DEO. It also ordered both parties to attend mandatory counselling.

Reasoning

Because the application was filed in November 2024, the court applied the former ss 64 and 65 of the Women's Charter 1961, which require family violence that has been or is likely to be committed and a PPO that is necessary for protection, proved on a balance of probabilities.

On the 2019 incident, the husband admitted smashing the phone in anger and later accepted the wife had an eye injury, so hurt was found. For 14 June 2024, the scuffle itself was undisputed and the husband admitted going there agitated over the passports and sounding the horn and doorbells; the court believed the wife's account that he pushed and grabbed her and caused her to fall. For 6 July 2024, his alibi covered only three hours of the day and there was no reason for the wife to lie. The bed incident was undisputed in substance and his explanation was hard to believe. CCTV showed him blocking her car on 3 October 2024, after shifting explanations, which the court found to be wrongful confinement or placing her in fear of hurt. The messages about the flat and the youngest child, his retaining the child on 19 October 2024 and his admitted use of her email to contact employers amounted to continual harassment.

On necessity, the court gave less weight to the 2019 incident since the parties had reconciled. The recordings and messages supported the wife, who was a truthful witness, while the husband was defensive. With split care of young children and contested access, the parties would keep interacting, and since the breakdown there had been a pattern of coercive and harassing behaviour, so a PPO was necessary. A DEO was not, as it was undisputed the husband had not been to the Singapore flat in at least two years and lived in Malaysia.

From the judgment