A woman’s application for a personal protection order (PPO) against her husband was dismissed after the Family Court found that the evidence, including her responses to his Telegram messages, did not establish that she had suffered emotional or psychological abuse.
Among the messages she complained about was one in which her husband told her that he had fantasised about killing her while they were still living together.
Her response later that day included: “I miss you.”
The court also ordered her to pay her husband S$1,500 in costs.
The written grounds for the case, YBA v YBB [2026] SGFC 44, were issued by Magistrate Yvette Tay on 19 August 2026.
Husband Sent Messages About Thoughts of Killing Her
The couple married in December 2023 but had been living separately since 1 October 2024.
The separation followed a fight on 30 September 2024. It was undisputed that the wife hit her husband and injured him. The husband subsequently obtained a PPO against her by consent on 1 November 2024.
The wife later applied for her own PPO, as well as a domestic exclusion order covering their matrimonial home.
Her case involved five alleged incidents. Four concerned Telegram messages which she said amounted to emotional or psychological abuse, while the fifth involved an allegation of physical abuse.
In a message on 29 December 2024, the husband told her that before he left their home, he had repeatedly fantasised about killing her. He added that such thoughts still occurred occasionally and said he believed he needed to stay away from her.
The court found that, when the full message was considered, he was describing his state of mind rather than threatening her.
On 1 January 2025, he again referred to thoughts of wanting to kill her returning after the pair resumed more frequent communication.
Magistrate Tay described this reference as unnecessary, but found that, in context, it was a misguided attempt by the husband to explain why communicating with his wife was affecting him and why he wanted less contact.
Wife Asked for Calls, Cuddles and Counselling
The court also examined how the wife responded.
After the 29 December message, she told her husband she missed him, asked whether they could speak before he went to sleep and said she missed cuddling with him. After he declined to talk, she later sent him a photograph of herself.
Following the 1 January message, she continued asking to stay connected. Among other things, she proposed couples counselling, regular responses from him and a shared online journal.
The court found that the overall tenor of her messages showed a desire for communication, connection and reconciliation rather than evidence that she was being tormented or intimidated.
However, Magistrate Tay specifically cautioned against treating reconciliation as proof that abuse could not have occurred.
She accepted the wife’s argument that hope and fear can coexist in a marriage, and said attempts at reconciliation would not necessarily undermine another applicant’s claim of emotional or psychological abuse.
In this case, however, the court found that the totality of the evidence did not support the level of distress required under the Women’s Charter.
Court Also Rejected Physical Abuse Allegation
The wife also alleged that her husband hit her arms during an argument sometime in May or June 2024.
Both parties described a physical scuffle. The wife acknowledged that she had been angry, shouting and had moved very close to her husband. She suffered no injuries or bruising and did not seek medical attention.
The husband said he accidentally struck her arms while trying to fend her off.
The court accepted his account and found that the wife had not proven physical abuse.
PPO Would Not Have Been Necessary Anyway
Under the Women’s Charter, obtaining a PPO requires an applicant to show, on a balance of probabilities, that family violence has been or is likely to be committed, and that an order is necessary for the applicant’s protection or personal safety.
The court found that neither requirement was satisfied.
The couple had not lived together or met since October 2024, and they had stopped communicating around 20 January 2025. The husband also made clear that he did not want further contact.
Magistrate Tay therefore found that, even if family violence had been established, the likelihood of further family violence in the circumstances was low and a PPO would not have been necessary.
The husband’s lawyer sought S$5,000 in costs. The wife argued that there should be no costs order.
The court ultimately ordered her to pay S$1,500.
