Individuals who face family violence may rely on a personal protection order (“PPO”) to shield them from further harm. In order to obtain a PPO, the applicant must prove that the perpetrator has committed or is likely to commit family violence against the applicant, and that the PPO is necessary for the applicant’s protection or personal safety (Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev. Ed.) (“Women’s Charter”) at section 60A(1)). This begs the question: What constitutes “family violence” for the purposes of obtaining a PPO?
Section 58B of the Women’s Charter defines “family violence” in 3 broad categories: Physical abuse, Sexual abuse, and Emotional or Psychological abuse. The illustrations provided under section 58B highlight the many forms family violence can take, ranging from smashing furniture in the home out of anger to making demeaning comments to humiliate the applicant in front of parties’ children.
However, not all conduct meets the legal threshold for “family violence”. The recent decision of YBA v YBB [2026] SGFC 44 (“YBA v YBB”) is a good example of how statements which appear hurtful or even disturbing may nevertheless fall short of the requisite threshold.
What Were the Key Facts in YBA v YBB [2026] SGFC 44?
The parties were married on 6 December 2023. They began living apart since 1 October 2024, following a fight wherein the wife had hit the husband, which prompted him to leave the home. The wife had consented to the husband’s PPO against her in respect of this incident.
The case of YBA v YBB concerns the wife’s subsequent application for a PPO against the husband. She alleged that, between May 2024 and January 2025, the husband had committed emotional or psychological abuse against her on four occasions, and physical abuse on one occasion.
In particular, the wife relied on Telegram messages she had received from the husband to form the basis of her case for emotional or psychological abuse. On 29 December 2024, the husband had sent her a message saying that he was in an “unstable state of mind”. His message went on to admit that “in the weeks/months leading up to [his] escape, he fantasize[d] all the time about killing [her].” Further messages described the husband’s violent thoughts as “coming back very strongly again”, called the wife his “greatest enemy”, and stated that he “will be as hard as [he] can be” on her (YBA v YBB at [14]-[17]).
Why Did the Family Court Dismiss the PPO Application?
The wife’s application was dismissed in its entirety, and she was ordered to pay the husband costs amounting to $1,500 (YBA v YBB at [59]-[60]).
Specifically, the wife’s application had failed to meet the threshold for family violence. Pursuant to section 58B(4) of the Women’s Charter, emotional or psychological abuse concerns conduct that “torments, intimidates, harasses or distresses a person”, or “causes or may reasonably be expected to cause mental harm to a person”.
However, not every action causing distress constitutes emotional or psychological abuse. The Court highlighted that the emotional or psychological harm suffered must go beyond “just mere unhappiness, frustration or distress” (YBA v YBB at [10]).
The context of the conduct is also relevant in its assessment. Here, the Court found that while the statements made in the husband’s Telegram messages may be shocking, upsetting or need not have been expressed so explicitly, they could not be characterised as threats (YBA v YBB at [32], [42]). Rather, the husband had merely been explaining the thoughts he predominantly had in the past to the Applicant, and firmly expressing his stance that parties’ relationship had ended. Thus, the husband was not frightening or threatening the wife.
What was perhaps most pivotal to the Court’s decision was the wife’s own conduct at the material time. While the wife claimed that she was intimidated by the husband’s conduct, her contemporaneous replies to the Telegram messages revealed otherwise. In response to the husband’s Telegram messages, the wife had continued sending him affectionate messages, such as how she missed him and wished to call him before he slept (YBA v YBB at [23]). She also wanted to travel overseas with the husband, demanded that he provide for her, asked him if he would visit her family for Chinese New Year, and even wanted physical intimacy with the husband, to the point of sending him intimate photographs (YBA v YBB at [37]). The Court observed that someone who was in great emotional distress, torment, intimidation or fear was unlikely to make such statements, and requesting for intimacy suggested that the wife was not actually fearful of the husband (YBA v YBB at [37]).
As for the alleged physical abuse, the Court accepted the husband’s testimony that he had accidentally hit the wife while trying to fend her off as she was hitting him with her arms (YBA v YBB at [54]).
Thus, the Court held that family violence had not been established.
Finally, the Court observed that even if there had been family violence, a PPO would not have been necessary for the wife’s protection. This was because the parties had been living apart since 1 October 2024, had not communicated since January 2025 when the last Telegram messages were exchanged, and the husband remained unwilling to engage with the wife any further (YBA v YBB at [58]). The likelihood of the husband committing family violence against the wife in the future was thus low.
What is the Legal Threshold for a PPO in Singapore?
The decision is a good illustration of the threshold that must be met before a finding of family violence is made. While the husband’s Telegram messages, taken out of their context, appear alarming, the Court’s analysis into the character of such statements evidently goes far beyond their superficial impressions.
Most significantly, the evidence showing the impact that such conduct has had on the applicant is a vital part of the assessment. An applicant’s subjective assertion of fear will ultimately be of little weight where their own contemporaneous responses reflect a very different reality.
Ultimately, if you are considering a PPO application or responding to one, it is important to obtain legal advice on whether the facts meet the requisite threshold before proceeding to trial.
Do you have any queries regarding family violence? Contact us.
Morgaine Ong is a Practice Trainee at OTP Law Corporation with a passion for family law
and dispute resolution. Over the course of her training, she has assisted with matters
involving family violence and personal protection orders.
