Justice Evrol Mariette Peters said such hostility tends to drive spouses to exhaust every possible effort and resource to discredit one another, often with a blatant disregard for the consequences.
“Allegations made in such disputes are not mere personal attacks-they are aimed at the parent of one’s own children. These accusations carry profound implications that extend far beyond the immediate legal battle,” she said.
Peters urged spouses involved in contentious family law proceedings to consider the long-term impact of such actions on their children.
“There are things that, once said, cannot be unsaid. Even if children are currently unaware of the conflicts and accusations involving their parents, there is a grave likelihood that they may encounter these damaging allegations in the future.
“Encountering such damaging claims can have a profound effect on their perception of their parents and their own sense of identity,” the judge said.
Peters remarks were made when dismissing an application by a wife, anonymised as VAN, for the court to order that a mental health assessment be conducted on her husband, VAL, and their two children.
Pending the assessment, the wife wanted execution of a court order granting the husband access to the children to be stayed.
Peters said the wife’s attempts to obstruct the husband’s access were not only persistent but also designed to humiliate and discredit him.
“She made deeply offensive and shocking allegations, accusing the husband not only of being a womaniser but of also engaging in paedophilia and zoophilia,” the judge said, adding that these serious but unfounded accusations had previously been raised by her in other proceedings.
Peters noted that the wife had in her affidavit admitted that these alleged tendencies had been present in the husband during his teenage years, rather than now.
“Yet, she chose to publicise these claims through her affidavits and submission. By reiterating these baseless claims in this application, the wife revealed a deliberate strategy to persuade the court to deny the husband any contact with the children,” the judge said in a 21-page judgment issued last week.
Peters called for litigants to approach such matters with a sense of responsibility and awareness.
“Parties must be reminded that in matrimonial disputes, there are no winners. The outcome invariably leaves everyone at a loss, and the biggest losers are the children.”
The judge noted that the acrimony between the parties in the case before her had been intensified by separate legal action which the husband had taken out against the wife’s sister.
Peters said the “shocking and unfounded allegations” contained in the wife’s affidavits and police reports exposed her to the risk of incurring criminal liability under Sections 182 and 191 of the Penal Code.
Section 182 makes it an offence to give any public servant false information intending it to be used to the injury or annoyance of any other person, while Section 191 criminalises the giving of false evidence on oath.
“It was, therefore, imperative for all parties to exercise extreme caution and ensure that their claims are thoroughly substantiated to avoid serious legal repercussions,” she added.
The fact of the case revealed that in November 2023, the court granted the wife sole custody, care and control of the couple’s two children, with the husband only allowed access to them.
The wife then lodged two police reports claiming their two children, aged nine and six, were reluctant to spend time with their father.
A third report accused him of sexually abusing their elder daughter. As a result, the Plaintiff was arrested and remanded, but was released on police bail.
The wife then filed the present application to stay the access order pending mental health evaluations on both the children and their father.
“It was undisputed that on May 20, 2024, the (husband) was informed by the police that the third report lodged by the (wife) on Feb 24, 2024, had been classified as ‘no further action’.
“This was corroborated by a letter from PDRM’s Criminal Investigation Department, which was filed in this court,” Peters noted.
The couple were married in August 2012, but the husband left the matrimonial home two years ago, claiming he had been compelled to do so by the wife after their marriage deteriorated.
Later, the wife and children also left the matrimonial home to reside with her parents.