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

The petitioner and her son were residing in a shared household with her former husband pursuant to a residence order under the Domestic Violence Act.

The petitioner alleged that her former husband was threatening and intimidating them and sought police protection.

The former husband opposed the petition, stating that the marriage had already been dissolved and that he had instituted an injunction suit concerning the property.

He alleged that the petitioners had previously obstructed an Advocate Commissioner's proceedings and attempted to prevent him from entering his own property.

He contended that the police-protection petition was actually intended to exclude him from his property.

The State submitted that there was no existing law-and-order situation warranting police protection.

The High Court considered the peculiar situation in which the former spouses were required to continue sharing the same household.

The Kerala High Court disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioners to submit a written request for police protection if an imminent threat arises.

The Station House Officer was directed to provide adequate protection where the circumstances justify such intervention.

The Court recognized that requiring two conflicting former spouses to share the same household could naturally create tension.

However, the Court made it clear that police protection cannot be used to prevent the former husband from entering his own property.

The order was therefore confined to protecting the petitioners from genuine threats and could not be treated as an order determining property or possession rights.

The judgment balances the petitioner's right to safety and residence with the former husband's property rights.

The Court recognized that a residence order under the Domestic Violence Act can create a difficult practical situation when the person against whom the protection is sought also claims ownership of the premises.

A crucial distinction was drawn between protection from threat and control over property. Police protection serves the former purpose and cannot be converted into a mechanism for achieving the latter.

The ruling prevents the police from becoming an instrument for resolving competing claims of possession or ownership, which must be addressed through appropriate legal proceedings.

At the same time, the Court ensured that the existence of a property dispute would not deprive the woman of protection if she faces a genuine and imminent threat.

The requirement of a written request and satisfaction of the police authorities provides a safeguard against both under-protection and misuse of police power.

The decision therefore establishes a practical balance: the woman can remain protected under her residence rights, while the former husband cannot be denied access to his own property merely through a police-protection order.