The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of the legal provisions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly regarding the burden of proof, the definition of domestic violence, and the limitation period for filing a complaint.

ORDER :

M.R. Anitha, J.

1. The unsuccessful husband in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is before this Court in revision.

2. Revision Petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No. 1/2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The parties are referred as per their status before the court below.

3. Petitioner's case in short is as follows:

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 23.05.1994. She is an Associate Professor and the respondent is a Dental Surgeon. After marriage, the petitioner and the respondent resided together in rented houses in Alleppey, Alwaye and finally they settled at Vyttila in 2010. Several acts of cruelty has been attributed against the respondent including his insistence to not to reveal the conceivement of the second child since his mother could not tolerate the birth of the second child. Another incident of brutally assaulting her during sleep while she was carrying the second child when inadvertently her nail touched the body of the respondent is also alleged. Again, in 2008, when herpes was diagnosed on the ear of her son, on the failure of the respondent to take him to skin specialist despite her request, she took the child to the hospital and when returned she was brutally manhandled, which resulted in perforation of the eardrum and as a result she is suffering from hearing problem and imbalance. Another incident on 03.12.2008 at 5 a.m. while he brutally fisted at her nose, it resulted in internal nasal ruptures, is further alleged. Again the assault while preparing thesis for Ph. D and further subjecting her to mental torture alleging psychic problems to her and administering medicine without her knowledge for psychiatric illness etc are attributed. He is also alleged to be suspicious of her morals and according to the petitioner she was subjected to continued physical and mental torture. Hence the petition.

4. Respondent filed objection denying all the allegations in the petition and various instances of physical and mental torture. According to him, he is a loving husband and has given proper care and attention to the wife and children and he had purchased property in her name. His readiness and willingness to look after the petitioner and the children is also made emphatic. It is also his contention that the petitioner manhandled him. He suffered all atrocities at the instance of the petitioner. It is also contended that due to the behaviour of the petitioner, his family members avoided him and they never used to come to his house. The allegation regarding administration of medicine without instruction of doctors etc. are also denied. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. On the side of the petitioner PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked. Respondent got himself examined as RW1 and Ext. D1 series, D2, (D3 series and D4 were marked subject to proof), D5 and D6 were marked. Thereafter, on hearing both sides, the trial court allowed the petition, against which Crl. A. No. 90/2016 was filed and by the impugned judgment the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Ernakulam dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the trial court. Against which, this criminal revision petition has been filed by the husband.

6. Notice was issued to the respondents and first respondent appeared through Adv. Sri. Johnson Gomez, and the second respondent through Sri. M.S. Breeze, Public Prosecutor. Lower court records were called for and perused and both sided were heard.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent/husband assailed the concurrent orders passed by the courts below on various grounds. According to him, the respondent is a husband who settled the property standing in his name in favour of the petitioner/his wife and by selling that property the property was purchased at Vyttila in their joint name and subsequently by availing a housing loan, a house was put up and EMI was b