Man sent explicit photos of wife and lover to family chat, but court declines to grant protection order
The man said that he was very angry and wanted the family to know he was not the one who sabotaged the marriage.
New: You can now listen to articles.
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
Read a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
SINGAPORE: A man who sent explicit photos of his wife and her lover to a family chat group committed emotional or psychological abuse, a family court has found.
However, the court did not grant the wife a personal protection order (PPO) she sought, giving among its reasons that the man had reflected on his stressors and taken concrete steps to change his life.
In a judgment published on Tuesday (Oct 13), Magistrate Soh Kian Peng emphasised that the lack of a PPO does not mean that he is condoning the man’s actions.
He also said that the PPO regime is not meant to right wrongs between people or to punish wrongdoing, but to protect those who find themselves trapped in a cycle of abusive domestic relationships.
The judgment did not name the parties involved, as is usual in family court rulings.
THE CASE
The couple are in the midst of divorce proceedings. The woman had sought a PPO and a domestic exclusion order for the study room in the flat they share.
The man admitted to adding his wife to a chat group with her family members. He then removed her from the group and sent explicit photos of her and her lover to the other members.
He had obtained the photos from her phone.
The man explained that he wanted to make it clear he was not the one sabotaging their relationship, and that it was the woman who was cheating on him.
In another similar incident, the man created a chat group with his wife’s supervisor. He added her to the chat, then removed her again.
The man claimed that he never sent any explicit photos to this chat, saying that he was very angry but managed to “master his emotions and take a step back”.
Mr Soh said that the man’s acts in both incidents amounted to emotional or psychological abuse, or both.
Even if one accepted the man’s account that he did not send explicit photos to the chat with his wife’s supervisor, this did not lessen the torment or distress she felt, said Mr Soh.
Instead, his actions in both incidents pointed to an attempt at maximising the torment or distress inflicted on the woman, who would be left completely in the dark about what had been sent.
It also presented her with an “impossible choice”, said the magistrate.
She could either ask her family members and her supervisor about what had been sent, or “let uncertainty gnaw away at her mind”, said Mr Soh.
However, despite finding that this amounted to an act of family violence against the woman, Mr Soh did not find it necessary to grant a PPO.
WAS A PERSONAL PROTECTION ORDER NECESSARY?
The magistrate said that, in considering whether such an order is necessary, the court must consider the likelihood of family violence being committed in the future.
“I would also add that it must be remembered that the grant of a PPO represents state intervention into what would ordinarily be the private affairs of parties.”
Mr Soh also said that disagreements and heated arguments are part and parcel of everyday living and of any relationship.
State intervention in the form of protective orders is warranted only when behaviour crosses the line and becomes unmanageable.
Mr Soh added that the man had exhibited videos that “spoke volumes” about the true dynamics between the couple.
The videos showed the pair having heated quarrels.
While the man’s wife had said that he made many unpleasant remarks about her, the videos showed that she was more than capable of standing up to her husband and holding her ground, the magistrate noted.
Not only did she raise her voice, but she also made similarly unkind remarks about her husband in front of their son.
Mr Soh added that the incidents of family violence took place in 2023 and were “rather dated”.
He rejected a point made by the woman’s lawyer that a PPO was required to prevent further arguments as the pair tried to sell their flat.
Mr Soh said that the couple must “use a good measure of common sense and carve out a sale arrangement together with their property agent that would minimise the need for them to interact”.
The woman’s lawyer, Mr Jeeva Arul Joethy from Regal Law, argued that the man was “altogether unapologetic” about the incidents involving the chat groups.
However, the magistrate disagreed, saying that the man had admitted to verbally abusing his wife and was committed to turning his life around and doing better for his children.
The man testified that his mind became clearer after he moved out.
“I didn’t have to handle so much turmoil that she created. The boys are more focused on their studies because they’re not seeing their mother for a while. So it made me realise it wasn’t worth it to go through all this anger because of her,” he said.
Source: CNA/ll(sf)
Sign up for our newsletters
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
