1 SSP 1346/2025 (“SSP 1346”) was the Applicant-wife (the “Applicant”)’s application against the Respondent-husband (the “Respondent”) for a personal protection order (“PPO”) for herself, along with a domestic exclusion order (“DEO”) for the whole matrimonial property (the “Home”). The Applicant appeared in person while the Respondent was represented by counsel.

2 After hearing parties and considering their written submissions, I dismissed the application. As this case engages inter alia the new category of family violence of emotional or psychological abuse under the Women’s Charter 1961 (“WC”), and as the law in this area is still developing, I now set out the fuller grounds of my decision below, having earlier delivered oral grounds to parties at the conclusion of trial.

3 Parties were married on 6 December 2023. At the time SSP 1346 was filed and at the time of trial, parties were still married but had been living apart since 1 October 2024. This came after an incident that occurred on 30 September 2024 (the “30 Sep 2024 Incident”), which culminated in a PPO being obtained by the Respondent against the Applicant on 1 November 2024, by consent. As the 30 Sep 2024 Incident was not a subject matter of SSP 1346, I will not go into details of the same, save to say that it was undisputed that parties had a fight, the Applicant hit the Respondent, the Respondent was injured, and the Respondent subsequently left the Home on 1 October 2024.

4 The applicable legal provisions are to be found in Part 7 of the WC. To obtain a PPO, the applicant must establish the following two requirements on a balance of probabilities (s 60A(1) WC): (a) that the respondent has committed or is likely to commit family violence on the person sought to be protected; and (b) that the protection order is necessary for the protection or personal safety of the person to be protected under the order.

5 Apart from ordering a PPO, the court can also grant additional orders, such as a DEO, pursuant to s 60B WC, if satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that such additional orders are necessary for the protection or personal safety of the person to be protected under the order.

6 What then is family violence? S 58B(1) WC defines family violence to include physical, sexual, or emotional or psychological abuse. Relevant to SSP 1346 were the two categories of physical abuse and emotional or psychological abuse, set out under ss 58B(2) and 58B(4) WC respectively, and reproduced below:

7 In relation to emotional or psychological abuse under s 58B(4) WC, the focal point is whether the respondent’s conduct has had a sufficiently serious adverse impact on the family member in question, or whether harm has been caused to the family member in question – this is clear from (a) the statutory wording that looks at the impact of a respondent’s conduct or behaviour on the victim; (b) the Second Reading of the Women’s Charter (Family Violence and Other Matters) (Amendment) Bill, where then-Minister of State for Social and Family Development Ms Sun Xueling remarked inter alia that egregious behaviour of a perpetrator that causes distress or mental harm to a survivor would be considered emotional or psychological abuse; and (c) the Explanatory Statement to the Women’s Charter (Family Violence and Other Matters) (Amendment) Bill (“Explanatory Statement”), where Clause 2(b)(iv) states that the definition of emotional or psychological abuse refers to conduct or behaviour that distresses an individual, and not to conduct or behaviour that is offensive to an individual.

8 The WC does not individually define the terms “torments, intimidates, harasses or distresses” under s 58B(4). The only term that the WC seeks to elucidate through the Illustrations under s 58B is that of “distresses”:

9 These Illustrations suggest that the term “distress” is consistent with its definition in the Cambridge Dictionary, which is “a feeling of extreme worry, sadness, or pain” (noun) or “to make someone feel very upset or worried” (verb). Further, these Illustrations also suggest that there must be some level of gravity or severity required of a respondent’s conduct before it can be said to distress a person. This is additionally buttressed by the definition of emotional or psychological abuse in the Explanatory Statement, which refers to conduct or behaviour that distresses and is not merely offensive to an individual. Indeed, as was noted in the case of VKW v VKX and another matter [2020] SGFC 70, there is an infinite array of unpleasant or annoying behaviour that may upset or even distress a family member, and if the threshold of a respondent’s conduct is set too low, PPO applications would be an avenue for parties to “settle their own petty disputes or vendettas”. This cannot be the case.

10 Further, it has also been said in the case of XWB v XWC [2025] SGFC 135 that not every action causing distress will constitute emotional abuse, and I agree – fundamentally, the statute uses the word emotional or psychological “abuse” as opposed to emotional or psychological “distress”, which suggests that the victim must suffer some level of emotional or psychological harm that goes beyond just mere unhappiness, frustration or distress.

11 As for the other three terms of “torments, intimidates, harasses”, these similarly carry connotations of severity. “Torment” is defined in the Cambridge Dictionary as “great mental suffering and unhappiness, or great physical pain” (noun) or “to cause a person or animal to suffer or worry” (verb); “intimidate” is defined in the Cambridge Dictionary as “to frighten or threaten someone, usually in order to persuade them to do something that you want them to do” (verb); and “harass” is defined in the Cambridge Dictionary as “to continue to annoy or upset someone over a period of time” (verb). Read together with the word “abuse” in s 58B(4) WC, these reinforce that there must be a meaningful threshold that a respondent’s conduct must cross before it can be said to constitute emotional or psychological abuse and consequently family violence.

12 Turning then to the issues to be determined in the present application, they were (a) whether the alleged acts or incidents, if committed, constituted family violence against the Applicant; and (b) assuming they did, whether a PPO and DEO were necessary for the Applicant’s protection or personal safety.

13 In the present application, the Applicant alleged that the Respondent had committed family violence against her on five incidents: four were alleged to constituted emotional or psychological abuse, while one was alleged to constitute physical abuse.

14 The first incident took place on 29 December 2024 (the “29 Dec 2024 Incident”). The Respondent had sent the Applicant a Telegram message (the “29 Dec 2024 Telegram Message”) saying inter alia “also I guess I just want to let you know that I am still not in a good mental state at this moment. I’m still in a somewhat unstable state of mind, some days I reminisce about the past and recall the good times we’ve had. But more often than not I get angry and offended when I think about how much of a monster you’ve become and how you treat my life with such callousness. I can tell you honestly that in the weeks/months leading up to my escape, I fantasize all the time about killing you. I think of all the various methods I can use to kill you. I think about stuff like ‘she doesn’t have many connections to other people, people probably won’t realise for a couple of days if she suddenly disappears from the face of the earth’. I remember going to youtube and learning how to put someone in a chokehold so that I can prepare myself for the day you go uncontrollably crazy and I have to knock you out. I’m not trying to threaten you but I definitely think this is not a good mental state to be in, these thoughts still appear occasionally even though I’ve already escaped, and I definitely do think I still need to stay away from you.” The Applicant said this message caused fear in her.

15 The second incident took place on 1 January 2025 (the “1 Jan 2025 Incident”). The Respondent had sent the Applicant a Telegram message (the “1 Jan 2025 Telegram Message”) saying inter alia “But now that I’ve resumed more frequent interactions with you, the thoughts of wanting to kill you are all coming back very strongly again.” The Applicant said this message caused fear in her.

16 The third incident took place on 5 January 2025 (the “5 Jan 2025 Incident”). The Respondent had sent the Applicant a Telegram message (the “5 Jan 2025 Telegram Message”) saying “Of course I have changed. After the incident on 30 Sep, I have already felt internally that bubu has died. You became my greatest enemy on that day. Which I guess explains the unaccountability that you’re speaking of – of course I’m not letting my enemy know what I’m trying to do, I’m not giving you a chance to intercept my escape.” The Applicant said this message caused shock and fear in her.

17 The fourth incident took place on 20 January 2025 (the “20 Jan 2025 Incident”). The Respondent had sent the Applicant a Telegram message (the “20 Jan 2025 Telegram Message”) saying “You think I’m abusing you? So you dare to do horrible things to me and you can’t stand people retaliating? Pathetic”, and “I may be quite a soft person normally, but you have taught me that some people don’t deserve to be treated nicely, so for you, I will be as hard as I can be.” The Applicant said she felt intimidated by this message.

18 The fifth incident took place sometime between May and June 2024 (the “May/Jun 2024 Incident”). The Applicant alleged that parties had a heated argument and the Respondent had hit her with his hands.

19 I did not find that the Respondent committed family violence on the Applicant on any of the incidents. I address each incident in turn.

20 Preliminarily, it is important to understand the context leading up to and surrounding the 29 Dec 2024 Incident.

21 First, prior to the Respondent sending the Applicant the 29 Dec 2024 Telegram Message, parties had not been in contact since around 1 October 2024, when the Respondent left the Home and blocked the Applicant. In fact, it was the Applicant who had been reaching out to the Respondent since then.

22 Secondly, the Respondent explained in the 29 Dec 2024 Telegram Message the context in as well as the reasons for which he was sending the message. The Respondent was looking back at parties’ relationship and reminiscing about the past – this is evident from his use of language such as “some days I reminisce about the past”, “when I think about”, and “I remember”. Even when the Respondent was sharing the parts of the 29 Dec 2024 Telegram Message that the Applicant was complaining about in particular, he prefaced it by saying “in the weeks/months leading up to my escape”, which would mean the weeks or months before 1 October 2024, and not at the time the message was sent on 29 December 2024. In addition, the Respondent ended the message by saying “I’m not trying to threaten you but I definitely think this is not a good mental state to be in”, and acknowledging that “I definitely do think I still need to stay away from you”. Considering the foregoing, I found that the Respondent was explaining the thoughts he had – predominantly in the past, and only occasionally after his escape from the Home – to the Applicant in the 29 Dec 2024 Telegram Message.

23 Next, it is important to consider the Applicant’s response to the 29 Dec 2024 Telegram Message. On the same day after receiving the 29 Dec 2024 Telegram Message, the Applicant replied at 18:10 saying “Bubu…. I miss you. Can I call you to talk before you sleep at 10am? Miss cuddling with you! Pwease????”, to which the Respondent replied at 19:01 saying “nah don’t think that’s a good idea”. Despite the Respondent’s rejection to talk to or engage the Applicant, the Applicant still sent the Respondent a further voice message at 22:08, followed by a photo at 22:11, saying “Me at ballet class today. You haven’t seen me in a while. This is what I look like now!”

24 At this juncture, it bears reminding that in such a case as the present, an applicant must prove the impact of a respondent’s conduct or behaviour on them – in other words, the applicant bears the burden of proving that the respondent’s conduct or behaviour in question had tormented, intimidated, harassed or distressed them, or caused them mental harm – this much is made clear by ss 103 and 104 of the Evidence Act 1893, as reproduced below:

25 In the present case, I did not find that the Applicant had established that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to emotional or psychological abuse of her.

26 First, from the exchange between parties as highlighted at [23] above, the Applicant did not appear to display signs of emotional or mental distress or harm. The Applicant’s response and further messages to the Respondent did not suggest that she was frightened or intimidated by the 29 Dec 2024 Telegram Message.

27 Secondly, during trial, the Applicant testified that what she felt was “confused” and “shocked” at the point in time when she received the 29 Dec 2024 Telegram Message, and that she was in a “state of limbo”. These descriptions did not suggest that the Applicant was tormented or intimidated by the 29 Dec 2024 Telegram Message to the level of experiencing emotional or psychological abuse.

28 Thirdly, during trial, when asked by Respondent’s counsel as to whether she had any evidence to show that there was a possibility or likelihood of the Respondent acting on his alleged threats, or of the alleged threats becoming a reality, the Applicant also acknowledged that there was none.

29 I pause to address a point that was raised by the Applicant in both her testimony and submissions at trial. In sum, the Applicant made the point that just because she sought reconciliation with the Respondent (as seen from, for example, her response as set out at [23] above), this did not preclude her from having simultaneously experienced fear of him. In other words, the Applicant argued that hope and fear can coexist, and that Respondent’s counsel’s suggestion over the course of trial that she could not have been fearful of the Respondent as she sought reconciliation with him misunderstood the complexity of human behaviour within a marital relationship.

30 I considered this point seriously. I accepted, as a matter of general principle, that human behaviour and emotions are complex and rarely experienced or felt one at a time, or one to the exclusion of the other, particularly in the context and within the intimacy of a marital relationship. The difficulty the Applicant faced, however, was a legal and evidentiary one, where the totality of the evidence and testimonies presented – including the context surrounding the 29 Dec 2024 Incident, the Applicant’s own messages, and her demeanour – did not support the finding of fact she wished the court to make; ie, that she experienced such distress that would amount to her being emotionally or psychologically abused.

31 I would add, for the avoidance of doubt, that nothing in this judgment should be read as suggesting that an applicant’s reconciliatory conduct will always or necessarily undermine a finding of emotional or psychological abuse. Each case turns on its own facts, and there may be cases where the totality of the evidence and testimonies presented to the court is consistent with a finding of abuse notwithstanding attempts at reconciliation. The point is that the court will assess all the evidence and testimonies on a case by case basis, and that an applicant must prove on that evidence and on a balance of probabilities that family violence has been committed. It is not, in my view, sufficient for an applicant to simply assert a subjective experience of distress if the evidence does not bear it out.

32 Returning to the 29 Dec 2024 Incident, while I did not think that the Respondent needed to have set out his thoughts so explicitly to the Applicant in the 29 Dec 2024 Telegram Message, I observed that the contents therein could not properly be characterised as threats in view of the context and reasons they were sent, the reaction and responses of the Applicant to the same, and when considering also that the Respondent did not take and has in fact not taken any action in relation to the 29 Dec 2024 Telegram Message.

33 In view of the aforesaid reasons, I was unable to find that the Applicant had proven that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to emotional or psychological abuse and consequently family violence.

34 I turn now to the 1 Jan 2025 Incident. It is important to note that the 1 Jan 2025 Telegram Message was, again, sent in response to prior messages from the Applicant – among other things, the Applicant asked the Respondent not to ghost her, said that she has “stuff to discuss” with the Respondent, and said that she would like to hear the Respondent’s thoughts on a “long long message” she wrote.

35 The 1 Jan 2025 Telegram Message sent by the Respondent is a lengthy one. I highlight a few parts of the 1 Jan 2025 Telegram Message that (a) set the part of the 1 Jan 2025 Telegram Message that the Applicant is complaining of (see [15] above) in context; and (b) shed some light on the Respondent’s state of mind.

36 While I again did not think that the Respondent needed to have mentioned that thoughts of wanting to kill the Applicant were coming back to him, I found from the context and tenor of the Respondent’s overall 1 Jan 2025 Telegram Message that it was not a threat to the Applicant, but rather an over-honest and misguided statement by the Respondent in his bid to explain his state of mind and position to the Applicant – which was that he did not actually want to talk to the Applicant because it was negatively affecting his mental health and state.

37 Moving onto consider the Applicant’s response to the 1 Jan 2025 Telegram Message, the Applicant replied some 20 minutes later, with a lengthy message of her own. I highlight some telling portions of her response.

38 From this exchange, I observed that the Applicant did not appear to display signs of emotional or mental torment or harm as caused by the Respondent. On the contrary, the Applicant put forward a list of pointers and requests to the Respondent in a rather spirited fashion, and the overall tenor of her response supported the inference that she still desired communication, connection and closeness with the Respondent, rather than that she was feeling emotionally or psychologically abused by the Respondent. I would also repeat my earlier observations at [30] above.

39 Therefore, I was unable to find that the Applicant had proven that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to emotional or psychological abuse and consequently family violence.

40 I turn now to the 5 Jan 2025 Incident. Again, the Respondent’s 5 Jan 2025 Telegram Message was sent in response to a series of messages from the Applicant from 4 to 5 January 2025. The part of the 5 Jan 2025 Telegram Message that the Applicant complained of relates to the opening lines of the said message – in particular, the Applicant claimed that the Respondent referring to her as his “greatest enemy” caused shock and fear in her. Considering both the message on its face as well as the underlying context, I did not find that the Respondent’s conduct in sending the message amounted to emotional or psychological abuse of the Applicant and consequently family violence.

41 In the 5 Jan 2025 Telegram Message, the Respondent made clear reference to the 30 Sep 2024 Incident before saying that the Applicant became his greatest enemy on that day. Considering the Applicant’s own acknowledgment of what happened during the 30 Sep 2024 Incident, where she admitted during trial that she was violent during the marriage and took responsibility for that by consenting to the granting of the PPO for the Respondent, I did not find it unreasonable or unthinkable that the Respondent would view her as his greatest enemy. The Respondent was also just telling the same to the Applicant and was not in any way threatening her. The Respondent testified during trial that this was an expression of his dislike towards the Applicant, and I accepted this characterisation.

42 Even considering the text on its face, I did not find that calling a person “greatest enemy” would ordinarily constitute conduct that would cross the threshold of then causing emotional or psychological abuse of that person. While I can accept that the Applicant may have been shocked or upset to read that the Respondent was calling her as such, it bears reminding that not all conduct or behaviour causing some offence would constitute emotional or psychological abuse.

43 Moving onto consider the Applicant’s response to the 5 Jan 2025 Telegram Message, the Applicant replied just less than 10 minutes later with a series of messages of her own, which continued onto the next day, where she largely declared that she still loves the Respondent, does not want him to leave her or the marriage, and talked about how she would like them to reconcile and fall in love again.

44 I also highlight two points that stood out to me from the Applicant’s responsive messages to the 5 Jan 2025 Telegram Message. First, the Applicant admitted that she was “merely testing the waters” when she asked the Respondent to send her a deed of separation, and testing how she really felt about him after seeing his response. The Applicant then concluded that the Respondent’s response in relation to the deed of separation (where he called it “a good idea”) and her internal feelings told her that she still loves him very much. In my view, an applicant who claims to be so fearful of or threatened by a respondent would not ordinarily be trying to test the latter, and the fact that the Applicant in this case had the wherewithal to test the Respondent by asking him for a deed of separation, before backtracking and declaring her love for him when she did not get the response she had hoped for, suggested to me that she was not feeling tormented or intimidated by the Respondent’s 5 Jan 2025 Telegram Message.

45 Secondly, the Applicant’s responsive message of 22:00 on 5 January 2025 unequivocally stated “i am not your enemy. i am your wife and spouse.” I took the view that this buttressed the earlier inference at [41] above that the Respondent was simply telling the Applicant that he viewed her as his enemy and telling her why he held this view as opposed to threatening her, just as how the Applicant was able to reply in kind and tell the Respondent her view that she did not consider herself his enemy but rather his wife and spouse.

46 For the foregoing reasons, I was unable to find that the Applicant had proven that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to emotional or psychological abuse and consequently family violence.

47 I turn now to the 20 Jan 2025 Incident. As the Applicant claimed that she felt intimidated by the 20 Jan 2025 Telegram Message, it is apposite to consider the definition of intimidates as set out at [11] above. Considering the part of the 20 Jan 2025 Telegram Message being complained of, I was not persuaded that it crossed the threshold of frightening or threatening the Applicant to persuade her to do something the Respondent wanted.

48 Preliminarily, the Respondent did not communicate anything he wanted the Applicant to do in the 20 Jan 2025 Telegram Message. In fact, the 20 Jan 2025 Telegram Message suggested that it was the Applicant who still had things she wanted from the Respondent – from helping her and her mother with the CCTV, to reconciling in their marriage.

49 The Applicant mainly took issue with the Respondent saying that he will be as hard as he can be to her in the 20 Jan 2025 Telegram Message. However, before stating that, the Respondent explained to the Applicant that “this is the end” for them and that he has not changed his position since the day he escaped the Home. The Respondent also said that he was probably going to block the Applicant again soon because she was just causing him unnecessary stress. The Respondent further stated that he was seizing control of his life back from the Applicant and that he was determined to get the Applicant out of his life. When read in this context, I accepted the Respondent’s explanation that he was telling the Applicant that he was not going to back down from his stance this time after what he had been through with her – in other words, he will be hard and firm in his chosen stance and position that parties’ relationship had ended, and relatedly, he was going to block the Applicant and seize control of his life back from her. In my view, the Respondent was not frightening or threatening the Applicant, but rather telling her his chosen position and how he was going to double down on it.

50 Therefore, I was unable to find that the Applicant had proven that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to emotional or psychological abuse and consequently family violence.

51 I touch lastly on the May/Jun 2024 Incident where the Applicant made an allegation of physical abuse.

52 The Applicant testified (to use the Applicant’s own words) that the Respondent had lied to her about something small, which really triggered her. Parties got into a scuffle and the Applicant was shouting and asking the Respondent why he was lying over something so small. The Applicant was agitated, flustered and panicking, and in return the Respondent got agitated that the Applicant was being so crazy, and then he whacked her on the arms with his hands. When queried further as to what she meant by her being flustered and panicking, the Applicant said that she was walking around in circles, asking the Respondent why he was lying to her over something so small, and shouting at him. She testified that she got really close to the Respondent, expressed her anger, shouted and got hysterical. Crucially, the Applicant acknowledged that the Respondent might have been frustrated and so whacked her on the arms to make her come to her senses and stop. The Applicant further admitted that she suffered no injuries or bruises and did not need to go to the doctor.

53 The Respondent’s testimony of the incident largely tracked the Applicant’s account. The Respondent denied hitting the Applicant with any intention to actually hit her. He also said that there was a physical scuffle resulting from the Applicant’s anger at him. The Applicant was hitting him with her arms and in an attempt to fend her off, he accidentally hit her, resulting in this incident.

54 Considering both parties’ testimonies as well as the nature and dynamics of their relationship in the round, I was unable to find that the Applicant had proven that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to physical abuse of and consequently family violence towards her. It was not disputed that the incident occurred during the course of a physical scuffle between parties. The Applicant herself acknowledged that she got really close to the Respondent while angry, hysterical and shouting at him. I therefore preferred and accepted the Respondent’s testimony that as the Applicant was already very close to him and hitting him with her arms, he accidentally hit her arms in an attempt to fend her off, and consequently did not make a finding of physical abuse in relation to the May/Jun 2024 Incident.

55 Even though I did not find that family violence was committed, for completeness, I would also not have deemed it necessary to order a PPO for the Applicant’s protection or personal safety in any event.

56 First, parties have not been living together since 1 October 2024 and have not met up since then. Parties have also not been in communication since around 20 January 2025 when the last Telegram messages were exchanged – this was confirmed by both parties and not disputed.

57 Secondly, the Respondent confirmed during trial that he was unwilling to engage with the Applicant any further. In fact, the various Telegram messages the Respondent sent to the Applicant from December 2024 already made this clear.

58 Therefore, even if family violence was committed, a PPO would not have been necessary for the Applicant’s protection or personal safety. Parties had been estranged since October 2024, had not interacted or communicated since January 2025, and the Respondent had consistently expressed his unwillingness to engage with the Applicant further. The likelihood of the Respondent committing family violence against the Applicant in future was, in these circumstances, low.

59 The application was therefore dismissed.

60 Respondent’s counsel sought costs of $5,000 (all-in). The Applicant argued that there should be no order as to costs. I ordered that costs of $1,500 (all-in) be payable by the Applicant to the Respondent forthwith.