XSF v XSG

XSF v XSG

On the balance of probabilities the husband committed multiple acts constituting family violence and continual harassment (physical assaults, wrongful confinement/blocking of car, threats concerning children and interference with employment); given the pattern of coercive conduct, the likelihood of ongoing interactions over child access and the risk of future harm, a PPO was necessary for the wife’s protection, while a DEO was not warranted because the husband did not frequent the Singapore flat and resided abroad.

Citation
[2025] SGFC 104
Parties
Applicant: XSG; Respondent: XSF
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
2 October 2025
Case Number
HCF/DCA 44/2025
Procedural Posture
Family Court Personal Protection Order Application / Judgment on Application (ppo Granted; DEO Dismissed)
Outcome
Personal Protection Order granted in favour of Applicant; Domestic Exclusion Order dismissed; mandatory counselling for parties ordered
Legal Topics
Personal Protection Order, Domestic Exclusion Order, Harassment, Necessity of Protection Orders, Family Violence, Credibility of Evidence
Source Language
English
Family Law Domestic Violence Protective Orders Personal Protection Order Domestic Exclusion Order Harassment Necessity of Protection Orders Family Violence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XSG

Applicant

XSF

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Court Personal Protection Order Application / Judgment on Application (ppo Granted; DEO Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the husband committed family violence under pre-amendment Women’s Charter definitions
  2. 2 Whether the conduct amounted to continual harassment
  3. 3 Whether a PPO was necessary for the wife’s protection

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the husband committed multiple acts constituting family violence and continual harassment (physical assaults, wrongful confinement/blocking of car, threats concerning children and interference with employment); given the pattern of coercive conduct, the likelihood of ongoing interactions over child access and the risk of future harm, a PPO was necessary for the wife’s protection, while a DEO was not warranted because the husband did not frequent the Singapore flat and resided abroad.

Court Disposition

Personal Protection Order granted in favour of Applicant; Domestic Exclusion Order dismissed; mandatory counselling for parties ordered

Orders

  • Grant PPO in favour of XSG against XSF
  • Dismiss application for DEO