1. Respondent No.2 in Crl. Misc. No. 149/2012 on the file of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore District, has come up in this criminal petition impugning the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in holding that the house owned by petitioner herein is a shared house as defined under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act').

2. The brief facts leading to this criminal petition are as under: -

The petitioner herein, Mrs. G. A. Ferris, an elderly lady, aged about 82 years, is the mother of 2nd respondent Michael Gerard Ferris and mother-in-law of 1st respondent -Svetlana Alexandrovna. The 3rd respondent is the legally wedded wife of 2nd respondent, who is resident of Dubai in United Arab Emirates pursuing his avocation. The petitioner, who is mother-in-law of 1st respondent, is residing at Bangalore in a house belonging to her, which is bearing No. 179 situated at E.C.C. Road, White Field, Bangalore-560 066.

3. The 1st respondent herein, complainant in Crl. Misc. No. 149/2012, initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Act. In the said proceedings, she has contended that: she is legally wedded wife of 2nd respondent herein; she is residing in house No. 179, ECC Road, White Field, Bangalore, along with petitioner herein, who is her mother-in-law. The said house is her matrimonial house, her husband, who is working in Dubai as Financial Director for International Legal Consultants, had instructed her to stay in the said house till he made arrangement to live with him in Dubai. Though he promised to take her back to Dubai, he developed intimacy with another girl friend and started living with her. Since he refused to take 1st respondent to Dubai, she continued to live with her mother-in-law in the house, which is standing in her name, claiming that as matrimonial house of herself and her husband.

4. It is also contended by her that she is no longer welcome to live in the said house by her mother-in-law. That there is an attempt to throw her out of the alleged matrimonial house. Hence, she filed petition in Crl. Misc. No. 149/2012 for the relief of protection order against 2nd respondent herein and his mother under Section 12 of the Act seeking to restrain them from committing any further act of domestic violence on her and her child; to order status quo regarding her residence; not to force her out of the matrimonial home; for monetary relief in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ per month as maintenance for herself and the minor child; Rs.2,00,000/-towards educational expenses of the child and also for protection order against 2nd respondent herein and his mother from interfering with the custody of her son and a sum of Rs.1 Crore as compensation for the injuries, mental torture and emotional disturbance suffered by her.

5. In Crl.Misc. No. 149/2012, the petitioner herein, who is 2nd respondent, entered appearance and filed statement of objections, sum and substance of which is that, the complainant -1st respondent herein has no right to seek maintenance from her and that the house in which petitioner herein is residing is her absolute property and that the relationship between petitioner, her son and the complainant not being cordial, the complainant is trying to forcibly stay in the house belonging to petitioner and that there never was any cordiality between petitioner and the complainant, therefore question of she ill-treating the complainant and quarrelling with her never arose. It is her further case that neither her son -Michael Gerard Ferris nor the complainant has any right in the house belonging to her and they also do not have any right to forcibly stay in the said house.

6. In the proceedings before the trial Court, an application in I.A.I was filed by the complainant for the interim relief under Section 23(2) read with Section 19(1)(a) of the Act to protect her alleged residence in the house belonging to her mother-in-law, petitioner herein. In the said