A Family Court has granted a woman a personal protection order (PPO) against her husband after finding that he had forced her to have sex, amounting to sexual abuse and family violence.
According to Channel News Asia report, Magistrate said the woman’s account of events was more believable and consistent than her husband’s claim that the sexual encounter was consensual. Divorce proceedings between the couple are currently pending.
Marital immunity for rape was fully repealed in Singapore in January 2020.
The woman’s application for court orders was based on a single incident that took place on May 28, 2025. She sought a PPO, a domestic exclusion order, a no-contact order, a stay-away order and a mandatory treatment order against her husband, citing sexual abuse as well as emotional and psychological abuse.
According to the woman, her husband had returned home that day with their two daughters after a martial arts lesson. She remained alone in her room, ordered wine and watched a show on her phone.
She told the court that she had not eaten or slept properly for days and drank alcohol to help herself sleep, describing herself as “emotionally overwhelmed and physically exhausted”.
Her husband later entered her room and scolded her for drinking, she said. The woman explained that they had agreed not to drink in front of their children and that alcohol consumption was against their religious beliefs.
She testified that she was lying on her side facing away from her husband when he hugged her tightly from behind and refused to let go. Despite repeatedly asking him to stop, she said he continued.
The woman told the court that she did not scream because she did not want to frighten or traumatise her children. She said her husband sexually assaulted her and then raped her, despite her repeatedly saying no and begging him to stop.
She claimed that during the assault, he told her: “(If) you’re going to report, might as well I finish it.”
The woman said her husband eventually stopped and left the room, leaving her “in shock, violated and emotionally destroyed”. She later texted a friend to say what had happened, fell asleep from exhaustion, and reported the assault to the police the following morning.
Following the incident, the woman said she became deeply affected and depressed, locking herself in her room for days and being unable to function.
The magistrate noted that documentary evidence from both sides was limited, but highlighted that a police report was made on the morning of May 29, 2025.
HUSBAND’S ACCOUNT REJECTED
The husband did not deny having sex with his wife on May 28 but maintained that it was consensual.
He testified that after sending the children home, he had texted his wife to warn her about a funeral being held downstairs, as she was superstitious and might be startled by loud noises or prayers.
When she asked where he was going, he assumed she was frightened and returned home.
Upon returning, he found her drinking wine. While he said he was upset, he denied scolding her, claiming instead that he spoke in an “advising” or “managerial” tone. He said his wife did not respond and stared blankly into space.
According to the husband, they later talked about their past and current relationships, which “sparked” intimacy and led to sex.
Magistrate Soh found the husband’s account internally inconsistent and difficult to believe. He noted that by the husband’s own testimony, drinking alcohol in the house was a serious issue due to religious beliefs and the need to set an example for their children.
“I could not see how a conversation on such a serious matter would naturally lead to a discussion on their past sex lives and consensual intercourse,” the magistrate said.
He concluded that the husband’s narrative appeared to be an attempt to cover up what had actually occurred.
“I found that the narrative the husband had presented was an attempt to cover up what had actually transpired – that he had forced himself on the wife in this incident,” Magistrate Soh said.
The magistrate accepted the woman’s version of events and found that the husband’s actions amounted to family violence in the form of sexual abuse, as well as emotional and psychological abuse.
He granted a personal protection order for the woman’s safety, stating that the husband had shown “no respect for the wife’s boundaries”.
A domestic exclusion order was also issued, barring the husband from entering the master bedroom. In addition, the couple was ordered to attend counselling.
However, the magistrate declined to grant other orders sought by the woman, including a mandatory treatment order, as there was no evidence suggesting that the husband suffered from any underlying mental condition that caused the family violence.
Image via Google
- Woman Arrested After Chinatown Accident That Killed Six-Year-Old Girl
- Teen Arrested for Allegedly Tampering With Police Camera in Punggol
- Woman charged for allegedly urging daughter to drop rape case against step father, promising ‘happy family’
- Man Dressed as Bruce Lee Jailed for Carrying Weapons in Geylang
- Man Jailed 12 Days for Showing Lewd Phone Note to Teen on MRT
