Latest JudgementConstitution of India

Shajitha V.P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026

A woman residing in a shared household pursuant to a residence order may seek police protection when she faces an imminent threat.

Kerala High Court·26 August 2026

Court

Kerala High Court

Date of Decision

26 August 2026

Judges

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Article 226, Constitution of India

Facts of the Case

The first petitioner, a woman, was residing in a shared household with her former husband pursuant to a residence order under the Domestic Violence Act.
She and her son approached the Kerala High Court seeking police protection, alleging threats and intimidation from the former husband.
The former husband opposed the plea, stating that the marriage had been dissolved and that he had already instituted an injunction suit concerning the property.
He alleged that the petitioners had obstructed an Advocate Commissioner's inspection and prevented him from entering his own property.
He contended that the police-protection petition was an attempt to evict him from his own property.
The State submitted that there was no existing law-and-order situation warranting police protection.
The High Court considered the unusual situation in which the former spouses were required to share the same household despite their conflicting relationship.

Whether a woman holding a residence order under the Domestic Violence Act can seek police protection while continuing to share the household with her former husband?
Whether police protection can be granted when there is an imminent threat to the petitioner's physical or mental safety?
Whether police protection can be used as a means to prevent the property owner from entering his own property?
Whether the High Court can direct police protection subject to a written request and satisfaction of the police authorities regarding the circumstances?

The Kerala High Court disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioners to seek police protection through a written request if they apprehend an imminent threat.
The Station House Officer was directed to provide adequate protection whenever the circumstances warrant such protection.
The Court recognized that requiring former spouses with conflicting relationships to continue sharing a household could create tension and apprehension of harm.
At the same time, the Court clarified that police protection cannot be converted into a mechanism for evicting the former husband from his own property.
The protection granted to the woman and her son was therefore made subject to appropriate limitations.

Police authorities can provide protection upon receiving a written intimation, where the circumstances justify such intervention.
The existence of a residence right does not authorize the beneficiary to use police protection to exclude the property owner from his own property.
Police protection is intended to safeguard life, physical safety and mental well-being, not to determine or alter competing property rights.
The former husband cannot be prevented from entering his own property merely because the petitioner has a right to reside there under the DV Act.

The judgment strikes a balance between the right of residence granted under the Domestic Violence Act and the property rights of the former husband.
The Court recognized the practical difficulties arising when divorced spouses are legally required to share the same household.
Importantly, the Court separated the question of personal protection from the question of possession or eviction.
The ruling prevents police machinery from being used indirectly to settle a property dispute or enforce an eviction without proper legal authority.
At the same time, the Court did not disregard the woman's safety concerns merely because the former husband claimed ownership of the property.
The requirement of a written request and satisfaction of the police authorities provides a mechanism for responding to genuine threats while preventing misuse of the protection order.
The decision therefore emphasizes that residence rights and property rights can coexist, and police protection must remain confined to its legitimate protective purpose.