The answer to this question is yes, which doesn’t mean the answer is a simple yes. Laws, which vary from state to state, may disallow mutual orders. What mutual means is that both parties’ restraining orders would issue under the same case number. Even though mutual orders may be prohibited in your state, provisions exist enabling you to obtain a restraining order against your accuser under a separate petition (that is, a separate action with a different case number).
This applies irrespective of whether your state refers to the instrument you seek as a “protection order,” “injunction against harassment,” “peace order,” etc.
Cross-petitioners who meet with resistance must be assertive. More than one resident of Illinois, for example, has reported having to really put his foot down to be afforded consideration by the court (consult the cited statute below to see why). If you’ve been wrongly accused by the actual harasser, abuser, stalker, or “dangerous party” in a relationship, you must make it clear in bald and urgent terms that that party is out to ruin you and that you daily fear for your safety.
Statutory specifics relevant to mutual orders are listed below state by state. This chart, reduced to fit the strictures of this space, was assembled by the American Bar Association in 2009 and can be found here in its original size as a downloadable PDF.
Copyright © 2014 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Hello.THis is M.Why couldn’t
i get an order of protection against M when he applied for one for me..it left me scared and confused and without much recourse to having him picked up when I was in court.I wish that I had spoken up and had the judge have him arrested…maybe he would have gotten the help he needs. I took so many drugs trying to help me go unconscious last night that I am not tracking very well this morning….
LikeLike
I applied to see a judge in 2006 and represented the frauds my accuser had committed as an attack. I also expressed the concern that she could motivate others (by fraud) to commit violence. Her husband wasn’t a dummy, but he did trust her, and she lied to extremity. (This was a guy who, like Michael, had to be warned twice in court to cool it. He was a hothead whose ear had been filled with nasty lies, and my impression was he was baring his teeth at the judge—or maybe at me; I didn’t spare him a glance, so I don’t know what the behavior was he was rebuked for.) Mostly I was concerned for my dog. (Any jumped up little shit who wanted to confront me in the dark had my blessing.) These were sneaks and cravens—backbiters and garter snakes—and my accuser was a poisons specialist by profession. She has a Ph.D. in toxicology (like her little friends).
The judge said she could help me if my dog were actually poisoned, but short of that all she could do was recommend I call the county prosecutor and report what she called “felony perjury”—which was a joke; the prosecutor’s office has bigger fish to fry. The judge just passed the buck. I think she was a newbie. She wasn’t unsympathetic; she just didn’t know anything.
This is all to say that you would have to be able to cite actual incidents (within the past 12 months, probably) that caused you apprehension. Lying to the court and others to stir contempt and lay a person low doesn’t count.
LikeLike