2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20698
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
KUNJAMMA WILFRED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/21297/2020
SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE, SMT.M.B.SHYNI, SRI.DEEPAK RAJ, SHRI.PRASANTH K.T., SHRI.RAMEES P.K., SRI THAJUDEEN PP, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.R.VINOD, SMT.M.S.LETHA, SRI.NABIL KHADER, KUM.K.S.SREEREKHA, NABIL KHADER, LIYA THANKACHAN, RAHUL.S, ARUN SEBASTIAN, FATHIMA NARGIS, JACQUELINE JACKSON
Individuals have a fundamental right to live without fear of violence, including from family members, underscoring the enforcement of protective orders under the Domestic Violence Act.
Headnote:
Protection - Domestic Violence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 23, Section 31 - The court reaffirmed the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights to life and privacy as enshrined in Article 21, stressing non-violence and the right to live without harassment by family members.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired headmistress, alleges physical and mental harassment by her son, the 5th respondent, demanding money for alcohol, leading her to seek protection under the Domestic Violence Act after suffering injuries and threats.
Issues: The primary issue revolves around the adequacy of protection for the petitioner against her son's violence and the preservation of her right to live peacefully in her own home.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the petitioner's right to live with dignity and the intrinsic link between privacy, personal autonomy, and safety from harm, necessitating protective measures against familial threats.
Final Decision: Protection measures ordered against the respondent to ensure the safety of the petitioner and her grandchildren.
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition portrays the sad plight of a mother who claims that she is facing physical as well as mental harassment from her own son. Her fervent prayer is to issue directions to the respondents 2 to 4 to afford effective protection to her life and property and also to the life of her two grandchildren.
2. Petitioner states that she retired as a headmistress of the Santacruz Higher Secondary School, Ochamthuruth. She is now 63 years old and suffers from various ailments. She contends that she resides in a house which stands in her name. She has two sons, the elder one is a driver and the younger one, the 5th respondent herein, is a chef in a ship. The daughter of her elder son, as well as the wife and minor child of the
5th respondent are staying with her in her house.
3. The petitioner states that the 5th respondent physically assaults her demanding money to satiate his appetite for alcohol. He even brings his friends home and indulges in binge drinking. When the petitioner raises objections, she is threatened with physical harm and weapons such as knives are brandished. On more than one occasion, there has been skirmishes with her elder son when he attempted to come to her rescue. She had to approach the police seeking protection. This made the 5th respondent even more aggrieved and he used to destroy the utensils and other household articles. She states that on one occasion, she was attacked with a beer bottle causing injuries. On another occasion, her insulin pen was permanently damaged by the acts of the 5th respondent. In the said circumstances, she lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the District Police Chief. Her grievance is that no effective protection is being granted by the police. She contends that in order to save herself from any more physical harm, she approached the jurisdictional Magistrate and lodged a complaint under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 . By order dated 13.10.2020, the learned Magistrate, after concluding that a prima facie case was made out, issued an interim protection order restraining the 5th respondent from physically, mentally and economically torturing the petitioner. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to afford protection to the life and property of the petitioner, her family members comprising her two grandchildren.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. It is stated that he works as a chef in a fishing vessel and most of the time he would be in the high seas. He states that his mother as well as his brother are inimical towards him as he married a woman against their wishes. It is stated that he along with his wife and minor child are living with the mother who has a habit of persistently harassing his wife demanding dowry. His wife has approached the jurisdictional Magistrate and has filed M.C.No.49 of 2020 invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the learned Magistrate has passed an order on 24.11.2020 ordering the respondents to restrain from physically and mentally torturing his wife. He would further state that his wife has approached the learned Magistrate and has filed a complaint alleging matrimonial cruelty and the said complaint is pending consideration. He would deny that he is an alcoholic and that he had attempted to harm his mother and brother.
5. The learned Government Pleader has filed a statement for and on behalf of the 3rd respondent. It is stated that on receiving a complaint from the mother, the 5th respondent was summoned and he was warned. On instructions it is submitted that on 25.11.2020 Crime No.1182/2020 was registered at the Njarakkal Police Station based on information furnished by the petitioner. In the complaint, the mother has alleged that on 25.11.2020 at about 4 pm, the petitioner entered the house and attempted to strangulate her and snatched the keys o