YIN v YIO
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Soh Kian Peng |
| Charges / claim | Family Law |
| Counsel | M M Marican & Co, Sean Muhammad Marican |
Source: [2026] SGFC 125, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (2)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
YIN v YIO [2026] SGFC 125 was decided by Magistrate Soh Kian Peng in the Family Court, with judgment handed down on 12 August 2026 and grounds of decision dated 4 September 2026. In SSP 2434 of 2025, the Husband sought a Personal Protection Order for himself and his son and two daughters, a counselling order and a Mandatory Treatment Order against the Wife. The issues were whether the Wife had committed or was likely to commit family violence and whether the orders were necessary for protection or personal safety. The court held the necessity of the PPO was not established, noting that a single police report made on 24 April 2025 was the only corroboration for the knife allegations. The application failed, and costs of $2500 (all-in) were fixed against the Husband.
[2026] SGFC 125 explained
YIN v YIO ([2026] SGFC 125) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 4 September 2026. It is categorised under Family Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGFC 125 about?
YIN v YIO ([2026] SGFC 125) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Family Law — Family Violence — Orders for Protection”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Summary
The Family Court heard an application by a Husband (YIN) against his Wife (YIO) for a Personal Protection Order for himself and three children, together with a counselling order and a Mandatory Treatment Order. Magistrate Soh Kian Peng was not satisfied that the Husband had proven his allegations that the Wife pointed a knife at him and the children, or that the orders were necessary. The application failed, and the Husband was ordered to pay costs of $2500 (all-in) to the Wife by 31 October 2026.
What was YIN v YIO about ([2026] SGFC 125)?
YIN v YIO [2026] SGFC 125 concerned a Husband's application in the Family Court for a Personal Protection Order for himself and his children against the Wife, plus a counselling order and a Mandatory Treatment Order. The application was dismissed.
What costs were ordered in YIN v YIO [2026] SGFC 125?
Magistrate Soh Kian Peng fixed costs at $2500 (all-in), payable by the Husband to the Wife by 31 October 2026, after Mr Marican had sought $5000 and the Husband said he could not afford to pay costs.
Cases Cited (2)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGFC 125)