ORDER :

This petition has been filed by petitioners No.1 and 2 challenging the order passed by LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.615/2019 dated 19.8.2019 whereunder the order dated 7.3.2019 passed by IV Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc. No.113/2018 was confirmed by dismissing the appeal.

2. The factual matrix of the case are that petitioner No.1 is the mother of respondent, petitioner No.2 is the brother of respondent. Respondent is working as a Doctor by profession and her marriage was performed with one Mr.Manohar during the year 2002. Thereafter, she started residing in the house of in-laws at Delhi. She stayed there for few months, thereafter she eloped with Dr.Zubair Khan and the marriage with Mr.Manohar ended by way of decree of divorce. Immediately, she changed her name as Ayesha Zubair and converted herself to Muslim religion and she got married with Dr.Zubair Khan, in her matrimonial home. Subsequently they shifted to UAE and settled down there permanently and there she has given birth to two children. It is further stated that the grandmother of petitioner No.2 one Smt.Savithramma was the absolute owner of property bearing No.50 and 50/1 at Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru. The said property was gifted in favour of the second petitioner. It is further contended that in the first week of October, 2018, respondent came to the house of the petitioners and demanded to give the property to her. When her demand was refused, she picked up quarrel and even went to the extent of causing injury to her parents as well as petitioner No.2. So in this behalf a complaint was also registered against respondent in Crime No.106/2018. As a counterblast, respondent has also filed complaint against both the petitioners and wife of second petitioner before the jurisdictional police. Her complaint is registered in Crime No.105/2018. In that background respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter called as ‘DV Act’, for short). Thereafter, after service of notice an application was filed by the petitioners with regard to maintainability of such complaint. The trial Court dismissed the said application. Appellate Court confirmed the same. Challenging the same the petitioners are before this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent.

4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that complainant is not an aggrieved person as contemplated under Section 2(a) of DV Act. It is his further submission that the petition as against the petitioners is not maintainable under Section 12 of the DV Act. In order to maintain the petition there must be domestic relationship as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. It is his further submission that the respondent-complainant is not in a shared household. If all these definitions are read together with reference to the factual matrix of the case, no complaint can be entertained under Section 12 of the DV Act. It is his further submission that the respondent got married in the year 2002 and thereafter she has divorced the first husband and got married to a person who is not belonging to her religion and thereafter she is residing permanently at Dubai. It is his further submission that she has filed a suit for partition for claiming partition in the property and she is not a divorcee so as to take shelter under the DV Act. The trial Court and appellate Court without considering the said factual matrix and the proposition of law have come to a wrong conclusion and have wrongly dismissed the application. The application filed by the respondent is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is his further submission that domestic relationship comes to an end once the respondent daughter moved out of the shared household and established her own household with her husband. In order to substantiate the said contention he relied upon the decis