Court quashes husband's personal protection order against wife
By Ansley Ng, TODAY | Posted: 17 November 2009 0711 hrs

	Photos  of

SINGAPORE: A woman whose estranged husband was granted a personal protection order (PPO) against her has persuaded the court to quash the decision.

His argument that he slept in fear of her was not enough to dismiss her appeal, as the couple are separated.

The man, a lawyer, had taken up the order after the woman – a banker said to be taller than him – allegedly punched and threatened to kill him in an incident in May last year.

Instead of retaliating, the man, a former police inspector with a black belt in taekwondo, called the police.

"(She) was very aggressive and her eyes were very piercing," he told the court in August during his PPO application.

The 38-year-old woman also applied for a PPO. She said her husband had a violent temper and had assaulted her several times during their marriage.

During the appeal on Monday, the woman's lawyer Koh Tien Hua told Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin that his client's husband, 45, has not been placed in a position where he should fear for his life.

"Apart from piercing eyes and words uttered as an accumulation of frustrations boiled over, there's no evidence the wife had made any attempt to harm the husband," Mr Koh said.

The couple cannot be named to protect the identities of their children, aged 5 and 7.

When the man's lawyer Chen Chuen Tat countered that his client's fear of the threats being carried out made it difficult to sleep at night, Justice Chao asked why the husband did not then bolt the door.

Mr Chen said his client felt that the woman still had a share in the house and should not be kept out.

Besides, it should not be up to his client to take a "defensive" position and "lock himself at home to prevent himself from getting hurt".

Justice Chao ruled that, while violence should not be condoned, the PPO was not necessary since both parties were no longer living together.

"His only fear was when he was asleep," he said. "I don't think the requirement of necessity was satisfied in this case."


- TODAY/so