WFS v WFT

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Clement Yong
• Judgment Date: 08 August 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGFC 66
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce No 1412 of 2021
• Published date: 17 August 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 25 January 2022,04 March 2022,13 April 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tay Choon Leng John (John Tay & Co.)
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Sia Khoon Kelvin David and Ng Qian Hui Sara (Vicki Heng Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Contested Divorce,Unreasonable Behaviour
• Citation: [2022] SGFC 66

District Judge Clement Yong: Introduction

The Plaintiff Wife (the “Wife”) and Defendant Husband (the “Husband”) (collectively, the “Parties”) were married on 20 May 2009 and have four minor children (the “Children”). In February 2021, the Wife moved out of the matrimonial flat with the Children and had not returned since then. In the same month, the Wife also applied for a Personal Protection Order (“PPO”) against the Husband (which was subsequently granted). Shortly after, on 26 March 2021, the Wife commenced divorce proceedings on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, namely, that the Husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him.

The Husband contested the Wife’s claim and entered a defence. Eventually, the matter was heard before me on 4 March 2022, and I delivered my decision on 13 April 2022. On the evidence, I found that the Wife had discharged her burden of proof, and I accordingly granted the interim judgment on the Wife’s claim, to be made final in three months. I also made no order as to costs as the Husband was legally aided.

The Husband, dissatisfied with my decision, filed a Notice of Appeal on 22 April 2022. I now give my decision below.

The Wife’s case

The Wife ran the case that the Husband’s behaviour was unreasonable, and she found it intolerable to live with him. Broadly speaking, her claims can be particularised as follows: The Husband had committed physical violence against her and their child. The Husband had repeatedly harassed her. The Husband was overly controlling. The Husband was disrespectful towards her and belittled her. The Husband did not trust her. The Husband did not provide for the children adequately.

The Husband had committed physical violence against the Wife and their child

The Wife alleged that there were at least two previous occasions where the Husband had committed physical violence against her. The first occasion happened on 8 July 2019. The Husband had physically attacked her by grabbing the Wife on her shoulder and wrist. The second occasion occurred on 19 February 2021, when the Husband grabbed the Wife’s left arm forcefully, pushed her and hurled verbal insults at her. As a cumulation of all she had endured, this was the breaking point which caused the Wife to move out of the matrimonial flat on the same day to live with her sister. On 24 January 2021, the Wife applied for a PPO and was granted an Expedited Order (“EO”) for her protection. On 22 September 2021, after a full day of a contested hearing, the PPO was granted (see VYW v VYV [2022] SGFC 02) (“VYW v VYV”).

The other related incident pertained to the Parties’ second son (the “Child”), who was eight years old at that time. Specifically, it was alleged that the Husband committed physical violence on the Child on the morning of 15 September 2021, by grabbing his arm and causing scratch mark, redness, and bruises to form on the Child’s arm. This happened because the Husband was upset that the Child was late for school. Upon finding out about this incident in the late afternoon on the same day, the Wife brought the Child to Khoo Teck Puat Hospital for medical attention and lodged a police report. The Wife then applied for a PPO for the protection of the Child (in SS XXXX/2021). After a contested hearing, the court made a finding of fact that the Husband had indeed caused the said injuries to the Child and that family violence under section 64 of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) (the “WC”) had been disclosed.

The Husband had repeatedly harassed the Wife

The Wife explained that the Husband had harassed her by stalking her, incessantly making phone calls and messaging her, and lodged multiple baseless police reports against her.

After the Wife had specifically moved out of the matrimonial home to distance herself from the Husband, the Husband sent numerous text messages to her and called her multiple times despite her refusal to talk to him. In all, the Husband had made a total of 165 missed calls to the wife over nine separate days. The text messages were insulting and threatening, and by his conduct, the Husband had caused anguish to the Wife.

As regards the stalking incidents, these happened after the Wife had successfully obtained an EO for her protection. The Husband had flagrantly breached the EO by persistently stalking the Wife. This resulted in the Husband showing up at their daughter’s school when the Wife was there, and more alarming, he was able to track the Wife to her temporary residence in late February 2021 by following her there.

The particulars above replied upon by the Wife were findings of fact made by the court in VYW v VYV.

In relation to the baseless and false police reports lodged by the Husband against the Wife, the latter gave evidence of the following: On 25 June 2019, the Husband falsely accused the Wife of drawing up false accounting records of a laksa business (which they ran together for a short time). This caused the Wife to be questioned by the Police for an hour. On 26 June 2019, the Husband made another police report, this time alleging that the Wife had stolen laksa paste. As a result, she was subject to yet another round of questioning by the Police. On 9 August 2019, the Husband accused the Wife and her brother-in-law of theft, and this led to a Police search of the matrimonial home to inspect the Wife’s and her brother-in-law’s bags. On 21 February 2021, the Husband accused the Wife of threatening to throw their children out of a high-rise building, and the Wife was taken in for questioning by the Police on 22 February 2021.

In support of her claim that all of these police reports were false and baseless, the Wife highlighted that no action was taken against her by the Police in any of the abovementioned matters.

Even after the PPO was granted for the Wife’s protection, the Husband continued to harass her to make life difficult for her and the children. On 10 October 2021, the Wife had to resort to taking out a police report of her own, in which she exhibited messages from the Husband claiming that she was a chronic liar and accusing her of submitting false statements to obtain a PPO (despite the findings of the court in the said PPO case).

The Husband was overly controlling

The Wife stated that in addition to controlling her day-to-day activities, the Husband would also control other significant aspects of her life. For instance, after marriage, the Husband was adamant about her quitting her job as a Certified Public Accountant in a big four accounting firm to be a housewife. She eventually succumbed to his demands and quit her job, sacrificing her career for the marriage.

Where the Wife’s daily activities are concerned, the Husband would seek to exercise control over her life by requiring her to report her whereabouts at all times of the day and had to seek his permission to leave the matrimonial home. Whenever the Wife did not answer the Husband’s WhatsApp messages or calls, the Husband would call her incessantly. The Wife cited an incident in March 2011 where she missed the Husband’s calls. The Husband got upset and got into a fight with the Wife's mother and sister, who were then visiting the Wife in Singapore. Consequently, the Husband threw the Wife’s mother and sister out of the matrimonial home, leaving them with no choice but to be stranded in the airport without accommodation until they could board their flight the following day.

Further, the Wife alleged that the Husband had isolated her from her family and friends by limiting her contact with them. Specifically, the Husband would forbid the Wife and children from accepting any help or gifts from the Wife’s parents and friends. The Wife cited two incidents in 2011 and 2017, where the Husband refused to allow her parents (who were visiting from Malaysia) to enter the matrimonial home and became upset when she brought the children to her parents’ hotel room to meet them instead. This was because the Husband had forbidden the Wife and children from meeting with the Wife’s father.

The Wife also alleged that the Husband’s controlling nature extended to his parenting of the children. On one occasion, the Husband had resorted to forcing two of their children to make banners, praising him as the best father. The children had sent the Wife WhatsApp messages and pictures on 28 September 2021, informing her that even though they were unwilling, the Husband had forced them to make a banner with the words – “Papa treats us very well”.

The Wife also stated that the Husband’s controlling tendencies also extended to his interference in the Wife’s parents’ family business of selling laksa. In what later transpired to be a joint venture gone wrong, the Wife claimed the Husband interfered with her family's business expansion plan. Although the Husband was involved in the initial planning, he later took issue with how the business was run and also kept in his possession a sum of $28,000 that the Wife had initially asked the Husband to safekeep for the business, refusing to return the said sum to the Wife. In furtherance of the business dispute in June 2019, the Husband changed the locks to the matrimonial home and prevented the Wife from accessing the equipment and materials of the family business that was stored in the matrimonial home.

The Husband was disrespectful towards the Wife and belittled her

The Wife claimed that the Husband was very contemptuous of her and would often belittle and berate her for the slightest of things. In 2009, when the Wife was pregnant with her eldest child, the Husband asked her to move some potted plants. In doing so, she started to bleed. Instead of showing concern or seeking medical attention, the Husband scolded her for being careless.

In 2010, the Husband asked the Wife to cook him a curry dish. Despite doing so, the Husband...