Husband and wife both file for personal protection orders from each other, but court sides with man
Lydia LamSINGAPORE: After a man found his wife in a carpark with another man, relations between the couple soured.
The wife accused the husband of taking intimate photos and videos of her, while the husband alleged that his wife had assaulted and harassed him by threatening to get him in trouble if he did not agree to a divorce on her "ridiculous" terms.
Both parties took to court seeking personal protection orders (PPOs) from each other - with the wife seeking a PPO for her child as well - claiming harassment by the other party.
In a judgment dated Monday (Jan 22), a family court issued a PPO for the husband and ordered the wife to pay him S$4,000 (US$2,980) in costs.
District Judge Patrick Tay Wei Sheng said a PPO operates to "protect from family violence and not punish for family violence".
The Women's Charter allows a PPO to be made only where it is necessary to protect a victim from family violence going forward, said the judge.
While past family violence is deplorable, it will not justify a PPO where future family violence is unlikely, said Judge Tay.
WHAT HAPPENED
The couple married in October 2018 and had a child in March 2019.In end-2022, the husband found his wife in a carpark with another man. He confronted his wife, who denied having an extramarital affair.
She told him she no longer wished to share a bed with him and prevented him from sleeping in their bedroom. The man began sleeping in the living room.
The woman began suspecting that her husband had been telling others about her supposed affair. She checked his messages by logging onto a digital cloud storage system connected to his phone that she had set up.
She found photos and videos of herself in undergarments that had been taken without her consent.
The wife confronted the husband about the images, and the husband said he had been checking for signs of whether she had been intimate with other men. The wife called the police, who arrested the husband and seized his phone.
After this, the man left the matrimonial home and has not returned since. After he moved out, his wife continued to send him messages that he said were "extortionate".
The woman told her husband around April 2023 that she wanted a divorce and asked him to agree to her proposals. When the man rejected them, the woman said: "I can afford to play. Can you afford to play?"
"You're really in no position to negotiate with me. Think about it carefully."
She demanded that he show up at her lawyers' office to sign divorce papers and said she would "cancel the case" after he did, but did not state clearly what she meant by "case".
The husband rejected her and said the terms of offer were ridiculous. In response, the woman said: "If you don't show up to sign tomorrow, I won't leave any room for mercy for you or your family."
When the man failed to show up, the wife sent a message to the man's sister saying that she had given him "one last chance" and that her elder brother should be prepared to go to jail.
THE COUPLE'S CASES
After this, both the husband and wife had made cross-applications for PPOs. The wife's main allegation was that her husband had harassed her by taking photos or videos of her in undergarments without her consent.The husband's main allegation was that his wife, after discovering the images, had harassed him by threatening to get him in trouble with authorities unless he agreed to a divorce on her terms.
At trial, the unrepresented wife claimed that her husband had anguished her through continual harassment, taken images without her consent, raised his voice at her, gaslighted her and badmouthed her.
She claimed that the man had photographed their child naked and constantly told their child that "mummy do not want daddy anymore", causing the child to feel "broken".
The man, who was represented by Ms Cheryl Tan of Kalco Law, said his wife had continually harassed him, threatening harm if he did not agree to a divorce on her terms. He also alleged that his wife had plucked his hair and hit him on the head and back.
Judge Tay said two conditions must be proven before a PPO can be granted. First, family violence must have been committed or likely to be committed. Second, a PPO must be necessary to protect the person involved.
The husband admitted to taking the intimate images without his wife's consent, but denied the other allegations she had against him.
He claimed that his wife had applied for a PPO to annoy him and pressure him into signing divorce papers with terms favourable only to her.
The judge said the husband had "a startling dearth of insight into the wrongfulness" of taking the photos, saying that he did not know that this could not be done "as husband and wife".
There was a likelihood of family violence in the continued harassment of such indecent photography causing the wife anguish, said Judge Tay.
However, he found that things had since changed such that it was improbable that such harassment would continue, since the husband had moved out, was cordial in his messages to his wife even when threatened, and his phone had been seized.
The judge rejected the wife's application for a PPO of the child, finding that any physical punishment the husband had administered was "lawful correction of the child" when she misbehaved.
The photos the wife took issue with depicted "a playful scene" with the child smiling towards the camera in the bathroom, so the judge said it was probable that the husband had taken these photos "innocuously".
THE EXCHANGED TEXTS
Text messages between the husband and the wife around Apr 1, 2023 showed the woman making demands of the husband for a divorce.At one point, when the wife told the husband she was not "going to drag this out" and that "you will be even more dead if you drag this out", the husband responded: "I really miss you."
The woman replied: "I'm just asking you to sign the divorce now. I don't care if you miss me or not."
She later added that she would "take the time to play" with him and added "if not later you have to pay more legal fees".
"Do you think I am after your money? Even if I have to eat all the bones, I won’t leave even the ashes for you. If you don’t show up to sign tomorrow, I won’t leave any room for mercy for you or your family," wrote the wife.
The judge found that these messages were "hostile if not threatening" and promised "detriment by way of criminal sanctions" unless the husband agreed to his wife's terms.
"Indeed, these text messages were designed to cause anguish – it was precisely this anguish that would procure the agreement of the husband to those terms," said Judge Tay.
"The threats contained in these messages, particularly the one that the husband 'shall be prepared to go to jail', went well beyond any reasonable threat to exercise legal rights. In sending these text messages, which were extortionate, the wife perpetrated continual harassment with the intention to cause or the knowledge that it would likely cause anguish to the husband."
Even as the couple was undergoing divorce proceedings and communicating, the wife had "limited insight into the harassment and anguish that her text messages had caused", said the judge.
He said that even if she had been anguished by the intimate images her husband took, "her extortionate behaviour went well beyond any reasonable expression of that anguish".
It persisted for weeks after the discovery of the images and was methodical and opportunistic, drawing up a list of demands for the divorce and waving the spectre of imprisonment shortly after the husband was arrested, said the judge.
Given the likely continued communication between the pair, a PPO was necessary for the protection of the husband, said Judge Tay.
"Ultimately, a PPO is designed to protect a victim from family violence and not to avenge wrongs that he or she may have suffered," he said.
"My declining to grant the PPO sought by the wife does not derogate from my sympathies for her. Nor does it exonerate the husband, whose taking and storage of the images without the consent of the wife was egregious."
The man is under investigation for possible criminal offences over some of the photos on the iCloud system.
The judge directed the pair to attend counselling to facilitate their co-parenting of their child, whom he said they both care dearly about.
The wife has filed an appeal against the decision.
Last edited:
