Madras HC Orders Police Protection and RDO Inquiry After Village Headmen Bar Inter-Caste Couple from Home

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct a formal inquiry and the Inspector of Police, Paliyur, to provide protection to a Mayiladuthurai man who was locked out of his own home by village headmen following an inter-caste marriage.

The Madras High Court has directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai, to hold a formal inquiry and pass appropriate orders against five private respondents who acted as village headmen and prevented a man and his family from living in their own home after he contracted an inter-caste marriage. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, sitting singly, also directed the Inspector of Police, Paliyur Police Station, to complete the pending investigation in a registered criminal case within 12 weeks and to provide immediate police protection to the petitioner and his family. The order disposes of WP Crl. No. 1178 of 2025, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

How the Petitioner Was Locked Out of His Village

The petitioner, Pazhaniyappan, a resident of Mariamman Koil Street, Komal, Kuthalam Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District, had performed an inter-caste marriage. Respondents 7 to 11 — Emayavaraman, Selvam, Gajendran, M.R.N. Ramesh, and Chellappa, all from Komal village — condemned his actions in their capacity as Nattamai (village headmen). As a result, the petitioner's house was physically locked, and the family was forced to stay outside the village, unable to enter.

Pazhaniyappan lodged a complaint with the police. The sixth respondent, the Inspector of Police, Paliyur Police Station, registered FIR No. 198 of 2025 for offences under Sections 296(b), 127(2), 324(4), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against respondents 7 to 11. That investigation remained pending.

Even while the criminal case was under investigation, the petitioner was barred from entering his house and the village a second time. He lodged a further complaint — this time with the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar, Kuthalam Taluk. The Tahsildar convened a peace committee meeting, but respondents 7 to 11 failed to appear. The Tahsildar then gave oral instructions to the village to allow the petitioner to stay in his house. Those instructions were not obeyed.

The Writ Petition Before the High Court

Pazhaniyappan approached the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, to conduct a proper investigation into his complaint regarding the social boycott, and to grant police protection to him and his brother so they could reside in their house at Mariamman Koil Street, Komal.

Mr. B. Jawahar appeared for the petitioner. Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar appeared as counsel for the Government, representing respondents 1 to 6. Mr. M.R. Elavarasan appeared for respondents 7 to 10.

The Court's Reasoning

Justice Ilanthiraiyan took note of the sequence: an inter-caste marriage, the condemnation by persons acting as village headmen, the physical locking of the petitioner's home, and the complete failure of respondents 7 to 11 to comply even with an oral direction issued by the Tahsildar after a peace committee meeting. The criminal case registered by the police in 2025 had not reached a final report.

In this factual background, the court found that a fresh, formal complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer was the appropriate next step, with statutory notice to respondents 7 to 11 and a structured inquiry leading to a reasoned order. At the same time, the court held that the police investigation in Crime No. 198 of 2025 had to be brought to conclusion by the filing of a final report, and that immediate police protection was necessary for the petitioner and his family.

Directions Issued

The court issued the following specific directions:

• The petitioner is directed to lodge a fresh complaint before the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai Revenue Division.
• The RDO is directed to issue notices to respondents 7 to 11, conduct an inquiry, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 12 weeks.
• The sixth respondent, the Inspector of Police, Paliyur Police Station, is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No. 198 of 2025 and file a final report within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
• The sixth respondent is also directed to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members against respondents 7 to 11.

Outcome

WP Crl. No. 1178 of 2025 was disposed of on 30 June 2026 with the above observations and directions. The connected miscellaneous petition, W.M.P. Crl. No. 107 of 2026, was closed. No costs were awarded.