In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Annexure IV order passed under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (for short the Act) is under challenge.

2. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate has restrained the petitioners son (respondent No.3 herein) from "disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment" of the residential building by his wife (respondent No.2) and from inflicting any type of mental and physical torture to her until further orders. The Sub Inspector of the local Police Station has also been directed to give protection to the wife and assist her to implement the "residence order".

3. Petitioner, who is the father-in-law of respondent No.2, claims that the order issued by the learned Magistrate under Section 19 of the Act is ex facie illegal and unsustainable. He was not a party to the proceedings before the court below. He contends that he has got absolute right, title and interest over the said residential building to the exclusion of his son. However he admits that respondent No.2 had resided in the said building as his daughter-in-law for a short duration.

4. According to the petitioner, since his son did not have any kind of right over the residential building, the learned Magistrate was not justified in issuing a "residence order" as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act, on the sole ground that she had resided in that building as his daughter-in-law. He further contends that the residential building will not fall within the ambit of shared household as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act.

5. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the wife) that the residential building had been constructed by her and her husband very near to the existing ancestral home belonging to the petitioner, utilising their joint funds. Learned counsel submits that as far as the wife is concerned, the residential building in question is the matrimonial home. Further,

even assuming the building belongs to the petitioner, her husband being a legal heir of the petitioner having a share in the property, the learned Magistrate was justified in issuing the impugned order. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the wife had been residing in the said house ever since her marriage in 1998 till May 2007.

6. It is not in dispute that petitioners son had married respondent No.2 in the year 1998. According to the wife, she was residing with her husband initially in the ancestral home of her husbands parents. But later, a new building was constructed adjacent to the ancestral house and thereafter she had been living with her husband in the said new building for the last few years. In May 2006 some misunderstanding arose between the husband and wife. It is alleged by the wife that she was subjected to harassment while residing in that house.

7. It appears that the Protection Officer had submitted a "domestic incident report" under Sections 9

(B) and37(2) (c) of the Act before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, II, Punalar. A copy of the said report is on record as Annexure R2(e). In the said report the Officer had shown the period of incident of domestic violence as from May 31, 2006 till May 24, 2007.

8. In her application filed by the wife before the Magistrate under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act, she alleged that she was rescued from the matrimonial home , where she was put under confinement, with the help of Kottarakkara Police. She further alleged that she was not being allowed to enter the matrimonial home and that she apprehended danger to her life at the hands of her husband. It was in the above circumstances that the learned Magistrate had passed the impugned order after considering the averments made by the wife in the above application.

9. Thehusband had denied the allegations in the petition and contended that the residential building in respect of which the wife had sought