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.

A stock image of a man using his mobile phone. A family court found that a man who sent explicit photos of his wife and her lover to a family chat group had committed emotional or psychological abuse. (Photo: Pexels)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

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 parties involved were not named in the judgment, as is usual for a family court ruling.

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 before removing 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 in situations where behaviour crosses the line and is 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.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

该男子表示他非常生气，并希望让这家人知道，破坏婚姻的不是他。

一张男子使用手机的图片素材。家庭法庭裁定，一名男子将妻子及其情人的露骨照片发送到家庭聊天群，构成情感或心理虐待。（图片来源：Pexels）

这段音频是由人工智能工具生成的。

新加坡：一名男子将妻子及其情人的露骨照片发送到家庭聊天群，家庭法庭裁定他犯有情感或心理虐待罪。

然而，法院并未批准妻子申请的人身保护令（PPO），理由之一是该男子已经反思了自己的压力来源，并采取了具体措施来改变自己的生活。

在周二（10 月 13 日）公布的判决中，地方法官苏建平强调，没有发出保护令并不意味着他纵容该男子的行为。

他还表示，保护儿童免受虐待的制度并非旨在纠正人与人之间的错误或惩罚不法行为，而是为了保护那些发现自己陷入家庭虐待关系循环中的人。

按照家事法庭的惯例，判决书中没有提及涉案人员的姓名。

这对夫妇正在办理离婚手续。女方曾申请人身保护令（PPO）和家庭隔离令，禁止他人进入他们共同居住的公寓里的书房。

该男子承认将妻子拉入一个包含其家人的聊天群，之后又将她移出群，并将她和她情人的露骨照片发送给了群里的其他成员。

他从她的手机里获得了这些照片。

该男子解释说，他想澄清的是，破坏他们关系的不是他，而是那个女人背叛了他。

另一起类似事件中，该男子创建了一个与妻子上司的聊天群。他先是将妻子添加到群里，之后又将她移除。

该男子声称他从未向该聊天对象发送过任何露骨照片，并表示他当时非常生气，但设法“控制了自己的情绪，冷静了下来”。

苏先生表示，该男子在这两起事件中的行为都构成情感或心理虐待，或者两者兼而有之。

苏先生说，即使接受该男子的说法，即他没有向妻子的上司发送露骨照片，但这并不能减轻她所感受到的痛苦或悲伤。

相反，他在这两起事件中的行为都表明，他试图最大限度地折磨或伤害这名女子，让她完全不知道自己收到了什么。

法官表示，这也让她面临一个“不可能的选择”。

苏先生说，她要么可以向家人和主管询问收到了什么，要么“让不确定感折磨着自己”。

然而，尽管苏先生认定这构成对妇女的家庭暴力行为，但他认为没有必要颁发保护令。

是否有必要申请人身保护令？

地方法官表示，在考虑是否有必要发出此类命令时，法院必须考虑未来发生家庭暴力的可能性。

“我还想补充一点，必须记住，颁布保护令代表国家干预了通常属于当事人私事的事务。”

苏先生还表示，分歧和激烈的争吵是日常生活和任何关系中不可避免的一部分。

只有在行为越界且无法控制的情况下，国家才有必要以保护令的形式进行干预。

苏先生补充说，该男子展示的视频“充分说明了”这对夫妇之间的真实关系。

视频显示两人发生激烈争吵。虽然男子的妻子称丈夫对她说了许多难听的话，但视频显示她完全有能力反抗丈夫，维护自己的权益，法官指出。

她不仅提高了嗓门，还在儿子面前对丈夫说了同样刻薄的话。

Soh先生补充说，这些家庭暴力事件发生在2023年，已经“相当过时了”。

他驳斥了女方律师提出的观点，即需要颁布保护令来防止两人在出售公寓的过程中发生进一步的争执。

苏先生表示，这对夫妇必须“运用足够的常识，与他们的房产经纪人一起制定销售安排，以尽量减少他们之间的互动”。

该女子的律师，来自 Regal Law 的 Jeeva Arul Joethy 先生辩称，该男子对涉及聊天群组的事件“毫无悔意”。

然而，地方法官对此表示异议，称该男子已承认对妻子进行言语虐待，并决心改过自新，为孩子们做得更好。

该男子作证说，搬出去之后，他的头脑变得清醒了。

“我不用再承受她制造的那么多麻烦了。孩子们因为暂时见不到妈妈，所以更专注于学习。这让我意识到，为了她而承受这一切愤怒是不值得的，”他说。

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。