Elderly woman granted protection order against husband after 50 years of physical, verbal abuse

The woman was granted a personal protection order, a no-contact order as well as a domestic exclusion order which restricts the husband from his wife’s bedroom in the flat they share.

ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI

Published Nov 01, 2026, 05:00 AM

Updated Nov 01, 2026, 05:00 AM

An elderly Singapore woman won a personal protection order against her husband after telling the court he had physically and verbally abused her for 50 years.

Magistrate Soh Kian Peng also granted a no-contact order, and a domestic exclusion order.

The court accepted her evidence, citing the judge's view that the husband's behaviour made future family violence likely.

SINGAPORE - A woman who suffered years of abuse at the hands of her husband during their 50-year marriage has been granted a personal protection order against him.

According to a judgment dated Oct 22, the husband struck his wife with a walking stick, punched her in the eye, and hurled vulgarities at her.

The wife also testified he was prone to throwing and smashing objects at home when angry.

They had two daughters, one of whom died. The ages of the couple were not stated in court documents.

The wife sought several orders in court, including a personal protection order, which legally restrains the husband from committing family violence against her, and a no-contact order prohibiting the husband from communicating with her.

Magistrate Soh Kian Peng granted both orders, and a domestic exclusion order which restricts the husband from his wife’s bedroom in the flat they share.

The couple was also ordered to attend counselling.

The magistrate said there was a lack of documentary evidence at the trial, noting that the only documents filed were a statement by the wife and several images of police case cards which suggested that police reports had been made.

It was not mentioned in the judgment if the husband was ever arrested or charged with abusing his wife.

Over 20 years ago, her husband punched her in the eye while she was working as a supermarket cashier. No further details of this incident were provided in court papers.

The wife’s account of physical abuse by her husband over the years was corroborated by her grandson at the trial, who testified that he had witnessed his grandfather hitting and scolding her.

The magistrate said: “(The grandson) told me that (his grandmother) had endured this for the sake of keeping the family together. He described the impact of this abuse: (His grandmother) would just cry quietly on her own.”

Although the husband initially admitted to punching his wife in the eye in his testimony, he later denied abusing her.

Accepting the wife’s account over the husband’s, the magistrate said: “It was clear to me, based on the tone and manner in which the wife had given evidence, that she had indeed endured much over the long years of her marriage.

“She spoke with the weary air of a person whose tolerance had long since run dry.”

In granting the personal protection order for the wife’s safety, the magistrate said a major risk factor was certain aspects of the husband’s personality.

“The husband struck me as a man who was either incapable or unwilling to consider the impact that his words or actions could have on those closest and dearest to him,” said the magistrate.

The magistrate cited an incident 13 years ago brought up by the wife during the trial, where the husband “had driven their youngest daughter to commit suicide because he had chased her out of the house, leaving her with nowhere to turn to”.

The wife said her husband refused to go when they were notified to collect their daughter’s body.

As the wife was recounting this, the husband smiled. When the magistrate asked what he found amusing about his wife’s testimony, the husband said he disagreed with her account.

In his testimony, the husband denied any responsibility for his younger daughter’s suicide.

He admitted telling her not to return home, citing their religious differences and that she was in a relationship with a woman.

The magistrate said: “The husband’s inability to appreciate the impact that his words or actions could have on others, when considered in light of the history of abuse against the wife, in my judgment, increased the risk of him inflicting family violence on her in the future.

“It meant that his behaviour towards her was unlikely to change for the better.”

Nadine Chua is a correspondent covering crime and court at The Straits Times.

该女子获得了人身保护令、禁止接触令以及家庭隔离令，该隔离令限制丈夫进入他们共同居住的公寓中妻子的卧室。

ST 照片：林耀辉

发布于 2026 年 11 月 1 日上午 5:00

更新于2026年11月1日上午5:00

一名新加坡老妇向法庭申诉，称其丈夫对她进行了长达50年的身体和语言虐待，最终获得针对丈夫的人身保护令。

裁判官苏建平还颁布了禁止接触令及家庭隔离令。

法庭采纳了她的证词，并援引法官的观点，认为丈夫的行为很可能导致未来发生家庭暴力。

新加坡——一名女子在长达50年的婚姻中遭受丈夫多年的虐待，现已获得针对丈夫的人身保护令。

根据 10 月 22 日的判决，丈夫用拐杖打妻子，打她眼睛，并对她进行辱骂。

妻子还作证说，他生气时经常在家中摔东西、砸东西。

他们有两个女儿，其中一个夭折了。法庭文件中没有说明这对夫妇的年龄。

妻子向法院申请了多项命令，包括人身保护令（该命令从法律上禁止丈夫对她实施家庭暴力）和禁止接触令（该命令禁止丈夫与她联系）。

裁判官苏建平批准了这两项命令，并颁布了一项家庭隔离令，禁止丈夫进入他们共同居住的公寓中妻子的卧室。

这对夫妇还被勒令接受心理咨询。

地方法官表示，审判中缺乏书面证据，并指出提交的唯一文件是妻子的一份声明和几张警方案件卡片的照片，这表明警方已经立案。

判决书中没有提及丈夫是否曾因虐待妻子而被捕或被起诉。

二十多年前，她当超市收银员时，丈夫打了她一拳，打中了她的眼睛。法庭文件中没有提供关于此事件的更多细节。

妻子多年来遭受丈夫身体虐待的说法在审判中得到了孙子的证实，孙子作证说他亲眼目睹祖父殴打和责骂妻子。

法官说：“（孙子）告诉我，（他的祖母）为了维系家庭而忍受了这一切。他描述了这种虐待的影响：（他的祖母）只能独自默默地哭泣。”

虽然丈夫最初在证词中承认打了妻子的眼睛，但他后来否认虐待过她。

法官采纳了妻子的说法而不是丈夫的说法，并说道：“根据妻子作证时的语气和方式，我清楚地知道，在她漫长的婚姻生活中，她确实遭受了很多苦难。

“她说话时带着疲惫的神情，仿佛早已失去了所有的耐心。”

地方法官在批准对妻子的人身保护令时表示，丈夫性格中的某些方面是一个主要的风险因素。

“给我的感觉是，这位丈夫要么没有能力，要么不愿意考虑他的言行会对身边最亲近的人造成什么影响，”法官说。

地方法官援引了妻子在审判中提到的13年前的一起事件，当时丈夫“将他们的小女儿赶出家门，让她无处可去，导致她自杀”。

妻子说，当他们接到通知去认领女儿遗体时，丈夫拒绝前往。

妻子讲述这段往事时，丈夫笑了。当法官问他觉得妻子的证词哪里好笑时，丈夫说他不同意妻子的说法。

丈夫在证词中否认对小女儿的自杀负有任何责任。

他承认曾告诉她不要回家，理由是他们的宗教信仰不同，而且她与一名女子有恋爱关系。

地方法官说：“考虑到丈夫对妻子的虐待史，我认为，丈夫无法理解自己的言行可能对他人造成的影响，这增加了他将来对妻子实施家庭暴力的风险。”

“这意味着他对她的态度不太可能好转。”

Nadine Chua是《海峡时报》负责报道犯罪和法庭新闻的记者。