SINGAPORE, Aug 29 — “I can tell you honestly that in the weeks/months leading up to my escape, I fantasise all the time about killing you,” a Singapore husband told his estranged wife in a chilling message just a year after their marriage.

She later sought a Personal Protection Order against him, saying she had suffered emotional, psychological and physical abuse.

But earlier this month, Magistrate Yvette Tay rejected the wife’s application, finding that the husband’s disturbing words, in the circumstances of the case, did not amount to emotional or psychological abuse and that the likelihood of him committing family violence against her was low.

Here’s what transpired in the Singapore court that led to the surprising judgment, according to a news report by The Straits Times yesterday.

The unnamed couple, who married in December 2023, had separated less than a year later after the woman struck her husband during an argument, prompting him to seek his own protection order and move out.

The wife alleged five incidents of family violence between May 2024 and January 2025, four involving emotional or psychological abuse and one involving physical abuse.

The most striking evidence was a Telegram message the husband sent on December 29, 2024, saying he was in an “unstable state of mind” and describing his anger towards his wife.

The woman testified that the messages left her confused and shocked and put her in “a state of limbo”.

But she also noted that her immediate responses did not suggest she was fearful of him.

She told him she missed him, asked if they could cuddle, suggested taking a holiday together and sent him an intimate photograph.

“To make such a request would suggest that the applicant was not fearful of the respondent,” the magistrate said in her grounds of decision issued on August 19.

Tay found that the husband was explaining thoughts he had predominantly experienced in the past, rather than making a threat to harm his wife.

She described his message as an “over-honest and misguided” attempt to explain his state of mind and why he did not want further contact with his wife.

The couple had been estranged since October 2024 and had not communicated since January 2025, while the husband had consistently expressed his unwillingness to engage with her further.

“The likelihood of the respondent committing family violence against the applicant was, in these circumstances, low,” the magistrate was quoted as saying.

The wife’s application was dismissed and she was ordered to pay her husband S$1,500 (RM4,665) in costs.

The ruling does not mean statements about killing a spouse can never amount to family violence, but reflects the court’s assessment of the evidence, the context of the messages and the likelihood of future violence in this particular case.