Emotional abuse claims must show real harm beyond frustration, unhappiness: Singapore courts

A domestic exclusion order restricts the perpetrator from entering the applicant’s house or parts of the house.

The couple, who have been married for 28 years, are also divorcing.

The woman cited multiple incidents of alleged abusive and controlling behaviour, including the husband monitoring her call logs, threatening her with a knife and spreading false accusations about her.

In the judgment released on March 16, District Judge Chua Wei Yuan dismissed her application.

Judge Chua said the woman had failed to provide sufficient particulars of her claims. 

For example, she did not provide details about how her husband had allegedly exerted control over her call logs or messages, or unfriended her contacts on Facebook. There was also no reliable evidence that these incidents had occurred.

The act that came closest to family violence was when the husband allegedly told the couple’s god-sister that the wife was “overly wild and social”, and was unfaithful. The god-sister claimed that the husband later admitted these accusations were false.

The judge questioned the reliability of the god-sister’s statement as it was written in English, a language she does not understand. 

The statement was also interpreted by the woman’s older children, who could be biased, as the husband claimed.

The judge also noted that the god-sister’s statement was not taken before a commissioner for oaths.

Judge Chua said the evidence showed that the husband had voiced his concerns only to the god-sister, and not multiple people.  

He also noted that the photographs provided by the husband merely showed his wife in ordinary social settings, such that no reasonable person would believe they are proof of infidelity. The god-sister, who saw the photos, did not believe the wife was unfaithful.

The judge said that a significant part of the distress that comes from falsehoods being spread is not so much the falsehood said, but that the listener believes it or even repeats it.

In their judgments, both judges referred to examples of coercive control that were cited as emotional and psychological abuse during the second reading of the Women’s Charter (Family Violence and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in Parliament.

Coercive control is controlling behaviour aimed at instilling fear. Examples include threatening to withhold financial support, constantly monitoring a victim’s movements, and isolating the victim from family and friends.

Mr Ivan Cheong, head of the Singapore family team at law firm Withers KhattarWong, said the judgments clarify when the legal threshold for emotional and psychological abuse is met, and provide guidance on how the courts interpret the law in line with the legislative intent behind the law.

The courts also require applicants to provide specific details and credible evidence – rather than broad allegations – when substantiating claims of non-physical abuse, said Mr Mohamed Baiross, a partner at IRB Law.

He added that allegations cannot be proven without specific details.

For example, since the woman had claimed that her husband was exerting control over her call logs and message records, she would have had to provide details of how, when and how often he controlled her communication records, and how she was affected by his actions.

Lawyers say applicants can submit evidence collected through text messages, e-mails, photographs, videos, CCTV footage and voice recordings detailing the abuse.

Ms Chong Xin Yi, head of dispute resolution at law firm Gloria James-Civetta & Co, noted that proving that family violence has occurred is the first of two legal requirements to get a PPO. The second is that the court must find that a PPO is necessary to protect the victim.

The woman in the second case claimed that her husband threatened her with a knife in 2004, and that he threw his helmet and banged his head against the door or wall when she refused to comply with his demands.

However, Judge Chua said that even if these incidents had happened, they were isolated ones that occurred more than 20 years ago. The woman admitted that such conduct has not recurred.

The judge said a PPO is unnecessary as the husband has moved out of the house, and such behaviour is unlikely to repeat itself.

Mr Baiross said both judgments showed that distress alone does not amount to emotional and psychological abuse under the law.

He said: “The law must protect individuals from genuine emotional or psychological harm, but it must also avoid turning ordinary family disagreements or disciplinary conflicts into findings of family violence.”