Singapore man seeks multiple court protection orders from his wife after she allegedly beats him up, pokes him with needles, takes his money and accuses him of having affairs - Singapore News

SINGAPORE: A Singapore man who claimed his wife beat him, controlled his salary, accused him of having affairs and even poked him with acupuncture needles failed in his attempt to obtain court protection orders after a judge ruled the man hadn’t shown that protection was still necessary.

According to a judgment reported on May 25 by Channel NewsAsia (CNA), the man had asked the Family Justice Courts for several forms of protection, including a Personal Protection Order (PPO), a no-contact order, counselling, and mandatory treatment orders.

The court ultimately dismissed all applications. The decision didn’t centre on whether every allegation happened as described. Instead, the court focused on whether legal protection remained necessary given the couple’s current situation.

Claims of control, fear and abuse

The husband painted a picture of married life shaped by suspicion and strict control. He claimed his wife regularly accused him of having affairs and demanded access to his phone whenever she became suspicious.

He also alleged the repeated accusations of infidelity involving multiple women, including his stepmother. And whenever such suspicion arises, the wife is said to force the husband to kneel and crawl around the house floor 100 times.

Another incident allegedly began after she wanted money linked to a government payout and escalated into a confrontation involving a 15cm-long kitchen knife before tensions eased.

The man also alleged that his wife, having knowledge in Traditional Chinese Medicine, later used acupuncture needles on his private parts and told him it was meant to prevent health issues, such as preventing it from turning black. She also threatened to kill him with the needles. He said the incident left him frightened and in pain, going to sleep only from about 3 am to 4 am.

On top of that traumatising experience, he said his wife also ordered him to wash her clothes every night and give her a massage and would strike him with a massage stick whenever she felt he wasn’t doing it properly.

Beyond that, he described a routine in which he handed over his full monthly salary and received only S$4 to S$5 a day for food. He claimed he had to return home quickly after work to avoid punishment and carried out household tasks under pressure.

The court rejected the protection order application because the couple had already separated

The hearing proceeded without the wife after she informed the court she was receiving medical treatment in China and agreed to accept the outcome. The court, however, didn’t accept her explanation for missing the hearing because supporting medical documents were not provided.

Still, Magistrate Soh Kian Peng didn’t grant the husband’s request. In the written judgment, the magistrate said that even if the husband’s account were accepted in full, the application still fell short on a key legal point: whether protection orders were still needed for the man’s present safety.

The court noted that the couple had already separated, the husband had cut off contact with his wife and her relatives, and he had kept his current residence hidden from them. Those steps, the magistrate said, reduced the likelihood of further incidents.

Because the PPO application failed, the linked requests for counselling, no-contact and treatment orders were also dismissed.

Family violence cases in courts don’t always meet expectations, especially when it’s no longer necessary

Cases involving alleged family violence challenge public assumptions about who seeks help and how abuse is perceived.

This particular case demonstrates that court orders aren’t automatic even after serious allegations. Courts still consider current risk, evidence, and whether legal intervention remains necessary at the time of the hearing, because protection orders are designed to prevent future harm, not to act as a finding that every disputed event took place.

As for the human side of it, separation, distance and cutting contact can become the first practical line of protection long before a court order enters the verdict.

- Advertisement -