In cases involving protection orders under domestic violence laws, the need for safeguarding familial access must be balanced against existing legal restraints.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have sought for police protection.

2. The 1^st petitioner’s parents are residing in the family house allegedly owned by the 2^nd petitioner. Petitioners are residing in a rented house away from his parents. The 5^th respondent is the wife of the 1^st petitioner’s brother and there is a matrimonial dispute between them. Due to the said dispute, petitioners’ claim that the 5^th respondent is not permitting them to take care of his aged parents and is even denying the petitioners entry into the house. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that M.C.No.81/2022 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani, has been filed by the 5^th respondent, in which Ext.P2 order was issued under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 , directing the parents of the 1^st petitioner as well as his brother from committing any abuse or evict the 5^th respondent from her residential house forcefully and also to pay an amount as compensation.

3. According to the petitioners, on the basis of Ext.P2 order, the 5^th respondent is residing in their family house and even refusing to take care of the parents of the 1^st petitioner. It is in such circumstance, that this writ petition has been filed, seeking the following reliefs:

“(I). Issue a writ of mandamus directing 4^th respondent to provide adequate, sufficient, affective, proper and regular police protection to the life of the petitioners to enter into the tharavad house, where the parents are residing to look after them and to reside with them and to carry out maintenance work of the house, without any kind of threat, intimidation, obstruction, attack and manhandle etc. from the part of the 5^th respondent and her men.

(II). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4^th respondent to take action against the 5^th respondent in the event when she obstruct the entry of the petitioners into the tharavad house to look after them and to reside with them and to carry out the maintenance work of the house and to evict the 5^th respondent from the tharavad house in due process of law.

(III). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4^th respondent to take all steps and action to protect the life of the petitioners on the basis of the Exhibit P-3 complaint submitted by the petitioners within a time limit.”

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf the 5^th respondent stating that the petitioners have been residing far away from the parents ‘tharavadu house’ for the last 15 years and the 5^th respondent’s husband is now residing in another house with another lady. It is also stated that the parents of the 1^st petitioner are not being ill-treated and allegations to the contrary are all fabricated stories solely to gain sympathy and tarnish the image of the 5^th respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner’s parents and the 5^th respondent are residing together from the year 2011 and that the attempt of the petitioners is to evict the 5^th respondent along with her minor children from the house.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader.

6. The 5^th respondent is the wife of 1^st petitioner’s brother and is residing in the family house where the 1^st petitioner’s parents also reside. The 5^th respondent had obtained an order under the DV Act as per Ext.P2 directing her in-laws not to commit any verbal or physical abuse against her and her children. They are also restrained from evicting the 5^th respondent and her children from the scheduled property otherwise than in due course of law. It is also directed that the counter petitioners shall pay compensation of Rs.1,00,00