Police protection under the Domestic Violence Act is discretionary and not warranted when the aggrieved party expresses a desire to live independently.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks police protection for peacefully residing in the residential house owned by the petitioner from obstructions raised by respondents 3 and 4 herein. Petitioner also seeks for a direction to ensure that Ext.P1 order is complied with by the said respondents and also for return of her property including catering units, other articles and machinery belonging to the petitioner as well as a vehicle bearing registration No. KL-23-

M-19 registered in her name.

2. Petitioner is the wife of the 3^rd respondent while the 4^th respondent is her mother-in-law. The marriage between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent took place on 11.03.2007 and two children were born to them. The petitioner had approached the Grama Nyayalaya, Chavara in M.C. (DV) No. 52 of 2025 wherein, Ext.P1 order was passed granting an interim protection from any harm being caused to the petitioner and also protecting her peaceful residence in the house mentioned therein. The petitioner had alleged that while she was residing along with respondents 3 and 4, she was kicked out in January 2025. According to her, she had set up a catering unit called “Heavenly Foods and Caterers” in the year 2013 and also started a boutique by the name “Heavenly Designs” in a rented building and all registrations still stand in her name. Petitioner alleges that despite the various articles including a Maruti car stands registered in her name and she was earning a reasonable income from the business, the respondents threw her out of the house on 25.01.2025 after brutally assaulting her. Petitioner claims that though she has large assets, worth crores of rupees in her name, she is wandering around penniless and it was in these circumstances that she had to approach the Grama Nyayalaya and obtained the order of residence.

3. Petitioner alleges that even though the order of the Grama Nyayalaya, produced as Ext.P1, was given to the 2^nd respondent, no action was taken by him and on the other hand respondents 3 and 4 have enhanced their threats and even tutored her children to harass and torture her. Petitioner alleges that the 2^nd respondent is also not initiating any action to ensure that the order is complied with. Unable to bear the threats of respondents 3 and 4 and the inaction of the 2^nd respondent, petitioner sent a representation to the 1^st respondent as Ext.P4. Despite that, no action has been initiated, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent admitting the marriage and the two children aged 17 and 13 born to them. However the 3^rd respondent denied that the petitioner was kicked out of the house and according to him, since he was an employee in Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., he established a boutique in the name of his wife and took license in her name and while she was supervising the work, a person by name Kutbudeen from West Bengal was appointed as a tailor in the shop. The 3^rd respondent alleges that the petitioner, after betraying him and the children, eloped with the said tailor on 30.01.2025 after pretending that she wanted to stay with her parents for a few days. Later, a crime was registered by the petitioner as F.I.R No.289/2025 and during investigation, police officers, after a prolonged search for nine months, traced her location and found that she had gone to Madurai and then to Chennai and from there to West Bengal with the tailor. Thereafter, she was produced before the Magistrate and as she gave a statement that she wanted to live her own life, she was set at liberty. The 3^rd respondent denied all allegations of assault or threats and stated that t