ORDER :

Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner son of respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the judgment passed by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in Criminal Appeal No.37/2016 confirming the judgment passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC3, Tumakuru, in Crl.Misc.DV.No.16/2014 dated 28.11.2016.

3. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below without appreciation of the provisions of Section 2(f), 3, 12 and 19 of the Domestic Violence Act (herein after in short called as ‘DV act’) have passed the impugned orders and the said orders are not sustainable in law. She further submitted that the findings given that there is ‘domestic violence’ itself is not sustainable in law. She further submitted that immediately prior to passing of the order, the respondent No.1 was not staying along with the petitioner and as such there is no domestic violence as contended by her. She further submitted that there are so many contradictions in the pleadings and the evidence. The said aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. She further submitted that the findings given by both the Courts below are only on probabilities and imagination. On these grounds she prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned orders.

5. Percontra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently argued and submitted by justifying the judgment of the trial Court. He submitted that there is a domestic violence and the trial Court after considering all the material facts has come to a right conclusion and there are no good grounds made out for interference. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Before going to consider the submissions of the learned counsels, the facts leading to the case are that respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 12 of the ‘DV Act’, alleging that the petitioner being her son is causing physical and mental agony on her by way of abusing her in filthy language and assaulting her. She further contended that he threw her out from her house. He has not provided any maintenance as well as accommodation to her. Therefore, she has sought for grant of order prohibiting the respondents No.1 and 2 from committing domestic violence. She also sought for house accommodation in a house bearing Municipal Khatha No.4020/250 PID No.62810 situated at Nagannanapalya, Sira Gate, Tumakuru. On the basis of the said petition, notices were issued to the respondents. Respondents appeared and filed their objections by denying the contents of the said petition and thereafter petitioner herself came to be examined as PW1. She also examined one more witness as PW2 and relied upon two documents Exs.P1 and P2. Thereafter, respondent No.1 came to be examined as RW1 and he has not got marked any documents. After considering the said facts and circumstances the Court below allowed the petition and directed the respondents to return the possession of the house property and they were also restrained from alienating the said property and movable properties which belongs to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.37/2016 and after hearing the parties the same was confirmed.

7. The first and foremost contention which has been taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no domestic violence and immediately prior to the alleged incident, respondent No.1 was not residing with petitioner and as such the provisions of Section 12 of the DV Act are not attracted.

8. Before going to consider the said submission, I feel it just and proper to quote Section 2(f), (g), Section 3(iv)(b) and