Court directs police to provide protection to woman and child on written request without impeding respondent's right to enter his own property
In a significant judgment delivered on August 3, 2026, the Kerala High Court addressed the sensitive issue of residence and protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The case, Shajitha V.P and Another v. State of Kerala and Ors., involved the petitioner, a woman who had secured an order of residence to live peacefully with her minor child in the shared household formerly occupied with the respondent, her ex-husband.
The petitioner approached the Court claiming that despite the residence order, the respondent was threatening them and coercing them to vacate the shared household. The respondent, on the other hand, contested these allegations, stating that the marriage was dissolved in 2024 and that he had filed a suit seeking injunction against the petitioner. He further alleged obstruction by the petitioners and their supporters when an Advocate Commissioner attempted to inspect the property, and denied any threat to the petitioners' safety.
The Court carefully examined the conflicting claims and the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, particularly Sections 17 and 19, which empower a woman to live in the shared household and protect her from domestic violence. The Court emphasized that while the petitioner's right to peaceful possession of the residential building is protected by the order, this does not grant her the right to exclude the respondent from his own property. It was observed that both parties must share the household, despite their personal differences, which may naturally give rise to tension.
Importantly, the Court directed the police authorities to provide protection to the petitioner and her child if there is an imminent threat, based on a written intimation and proper assessment. This protective mechanism is intended to prevent physical or mental harm without turning the police force into a tool for forcibly evicting the respondent from his property.
The judgment thus strikes a balanced approach: upholding the petitioner's right to reside safely in the shared household while recognizing the respondent's lawful right to enter and use his property. It also clarifies that police protection is conditional and not to be misused to exclude the respondent forcibly.
This ruling reinforces the objective of the Domestic Violence Act to protect women from abuse and harassment while preserving legal property rights, thereby ensuring justice and fairness for both parties in domestic disputes.
Bottom Line:
Domestic Violence Act - Order of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Both parties must share the household, and police protection can be provided to the petitioner upon written intimation if there is an imminent threat, but the order cannot be used to prevent the respondent from entering his own property.
Statutory provision(s):
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sections 17, 19
Shajitha V.P v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2970376
