The petitioners herein are the respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively in MC No.65/2017, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Varkala. The first respondent herein, who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners, sought various reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the DV Act, for brevity).

2. The second respondent herein, who is the son of the petitioners, had married the first respondent on 7/2/2016. A child was born in the matrimonial relationship. The relationship got strained in the course of time. The first respondent alleged that due to unbearable matrimonial harassment meted out by the husband and the in-laws, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and was taken by her parents to their house. Alleging that, thereafter, the husband and the in-laws had not maintained her, the first respondent initiated proceeding before the Magistrate Court under the DV Act, seeking various reliefs, including a residence order, with respect to “Saiber villa”, which she claimed to be the shared household. The court below granted an ex parte residence order in favour of the first respondent. It was enforced with police protection.

3. The first petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and filed objection for himself and others. One of the contention set up therein was that, Saiber villa, regarding which residence order was sought, exclusively belonged to the first petitioner and that the second respondent herein did not have any legal right over the building. It was claimed that Saiber villa stood in the exclusive possession and ownership of the first petitioner, having obtained right, title and interest by registered document, which was produced along with the objection. It was hence contended that ex parte residence order could not have been granted by the court. It was stated that, on the strength of the ex parte order, the first respondent and her parents occupied that house with police aid, on 16/6/2017. The house had only three bed rooms and the first respondent and her parents occupied two bed rooms. Hence, the petitioners were forced to leave the house and they are now residing in another house. It was further contended that, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in S.R.Batra and another v. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169), the wife is only entitled to claim right of residence in a shared household, which meant, the house belonging to or taken on rent by husband or house which belonged to joint family, of which husband was a member. The learned Magistrate, on an evaluation of the available inputs, by Annexure A6 order held that the disputed house was not a shared household and that first respondent was not entitled for the residence order, The relief sought in the MC, with respect to the house, was thus answered against the wife.

4. According to the petitioners herein, even after the passing of the order, the first respondent and her parents continue to reside in the house. The court below expressed its inability to enforce the order vacating the ex parte residence order, purportedly in the absence of any specific enabling provision. Hence, Crl.M.C was filed seeking appropriate reliefs to give effect to Annexure A6 order. It was contended that, in the absence of any specific provision under the DV Act empowering the court to enforce an order against the wife who had initiated the DV proceedings, the only option was to seek an order under section 482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Evidently, an order of residence was granted ex parte, in favour of the first respondent herein, which was vacated after hearing the opposite side. It is alleged that, the first respondent and her parents who got access to the house on the strength of ex parte order continue to reside in the house. That allegation is not seen controverted. Hence, the question that a