The court affirmed that protective orders under domestic violence laws apply to spouses, while children must establish legal rights to reside in shared households.

JUDGMENT

Bechu Kurian Thomas .J The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 26.03.2025, to the extent it directs the grant of police protection to the life of the writ petitioner from any threat posed by respondents 4 and 5. The judgment further directed that the police shall not, on the basis of the protection order, interfere with the right of the third respondent in the writ petition to reside in the shared household, as long as the order in C.M.P. No. 2070 of 2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur, dated 04.07.2022, remains in force.

2. First appellant is the wife of the first respondent, while appellants 2 and 3 are their children. A matrimonial dispute exists between the first appellant and the first respondent. The first appellant obtained an order from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur, as evidenced by Ext. P1, whereby the first respondent herein has been restrained from committing any domestic violence, or from obstructing her peaceful residence, and from forcefully evicting her from the shared household specified therein, until further orders. It is not in dispute that the said order still remains in force.

3. However, according to the first respondent/writ petitioner, appellants 2 and 3, who are his children, had been attacking him, which compelled him to approach this Court seeking police protection. It is also stated that those appellants have no legal right over his property.

4. Having heard Sri Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri Vinoy Varghese Kallumoottil, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, and Sri Sreejith V.S., the learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference.

5. A reading of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge indicates that the first appellant has been specifically protected in the light of Ext. P1 order of JFCM-I, Punalur. However, no such protective orders are available for appellants 2 and 3 from any competent court of law. Without appellants 2 and 3 having or establishing any independent right to reside in the shared household, the observations of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment cannot be said to be incorrect nor does it warrant any interference.

6. Though the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision in Padmanabhan N. v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC 7177), we find that the facts of the said case were entirely different from those in the instant case. The judgment further goes to state that civil rights must be adjudicated by competent civil courts. In the instant case, appellants 2 and 3 are attempting to establish a right to reside in the property belonging to the first respondent. However, no such right has been declared by any competent civil court. Therefore, the aforenoted judgment, far from supporting the appellants, is actually contrary to their contentions. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.

Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ appeal, and it is hereby dismissed.