SINGAPORE – A woman’s application for protection against her husband was dismissed by the court which ruled the man’s text messages, where he shared fantasies of wanting to hurt and kill her, did not constitute emotional or psychological abuse.
Magistrate Yvette Tay noted in grounds of decision issued on Aug 19 that even though the wife had claimed she was afraid of him, her immediate replies to his messages was that she missed him.
Tay said the woman did not appear to display signs of emotional or mental distress or harm. In various text messages, the woman told her husband she expected him to provide for her, and to turn up for family events.
She even suggested they take a holiday together.
The magistrate added: “The applicant still wanted physical intimacy with the respondent and even sent him intimate photographs of herself.
“To make such a request would suggest that the applicant was not fearful of the respondent.”
The couple, whose ages were not stated in court documents, were married in December 2023 but started living apart less than a year later, in October 2024.
This was after she hit him during an argument in September 2024, which prompted him to apply for a personal protection order (PPO) against her and move out of the home they shared.
On Dec 29, 2024, the husband sent his wife a Telegram message saying he was in an “unstable state of mind”, but he recalled the good times they had.
He also shared that he often felt angry, and accused her of becoming a monster and treating his life with callousness.
“I can tell you honestly that in the weeks/months leading up to my escape, I fantasise all the time about killing you,” he wrote to her.
The wife said in her application for a PPO that she was abused over five separate occasions between May 2024 and January 2025.
She claimed four incidents constituted emotional or psychological abuse, while one was alleged to constitute physical abuse.
While the wife testified during the trial that she felt confused, shocked and in “a state of limbo” when she received the messages, Tay noted that the wife wrote back to ask if they could cuddle, to which he replied that it was not a good idea.
Despite his reply, the wife sent him a voice message and a photo of herself at ballet class.
Tay found that when the husband texted his wife on Telegram about these fantasies, he was explaining the thoughts he had, which were predominantly in the past.
The magistrate said the context and tenor of the husband’s message was not a threat to the wife.
Tay added that it was an over-honest and misguided statement by the husband in his bid to explain his state of mind and position to the wife, whom he did not actually want to talk to because it was negatively affecting his mental health and state.
She said in her grounds of decision that the couple has been estranged since October 2024, and had not interacted or communicated since January 2025.
The husband had also consistently expressed his unwillingness to engage with his wife further.
“The likelihood of the respondent committing family violence against the applicant in future was, in these circumstances, low,” Tay added.
The wife’s application for a PPO was dismissed and she was ordered to pay her husband $1,500 in costs.