ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court IV Kollam in Crl. Appeal No. 27/2015 dated 9th June, 2017.

2. The first revision petitioner is the wife of the first respondent. The second revision petitioner is their minor daughter. The second and third respondents are the brothers, and the fourth respondent is the maternal uncle of the first respondent. The revision petitioners filed MC No. 39/2011 at the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta (for short, ‘the trial court’) claiming various reliefs u/s 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the DV Act). It was alleged that at the time of marriage, the parents of the first petitioner gave 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her. Moreover, her parents entrusted Rs. 5,00,000/- to the first and second respondents. It was further alleged that later on 15.4.2008, the father and brother of the first revision petitioner entrusted Rs. 13,00,000/- to the first respondent and his mother. It is the case of the petitioners that utilizing the entire gold ornaments and money given by the parents of the first petitioner, the first respondent constructed a house on his property viz. Ajma Manzil. According to the petitioners, they along with the first respondent resided in the said house and it is their shared household. It was further alleged that on 9.12.2009 at around 9.30 p.m. the second and third respondents criminally trespassed into the above said shared household and assaulted the first petitioner. It was further alleged that thereafter on 28.12.2009 at 8.30 p.m. all respondents assaulted the first petitioner as well as her father and brother at Ajma Manzil and the first respondent stabbed the first petitioner with a knife on her head. It was also alleged that the respondents disconnected the electrical connection of the house and removed household articles from the house. It was in these circumstances the petitioners approached the trial court invoking the provisions of the DV Act claiming protection, residential and monetary orders. The petitioners have also sought for the return of gold ornaments and money entrusted to respondents and for reinstating the electricity connection.

3. The first and second respondents entered appearance. The third and fourth respondents were set ex-parte. The first respondent alone filed objection statement. The marriage between the first petitioner and first respondent and the paternity of the child was admitted by the first respondent. However, he contended that he divorced the first petitioner on 28.12.2009 by pronouncing triple talaq. The allegations in the petition that the parents of the petitioners entrusted gold ornaments and money to him and utilizing the same he constructed the house were denied by the first respondent. He has also denied the various instances of domestic violence allegedly exercised by him and the remaining respondents on the first petitioner pleaded in the petition. He contended that Ajma Manzil is a house constructed by him with his own funds and it is not a shared household. According to him, the petitioners never resided in the house along with him. It is his case that in fact the first petitioner along with her father and brother trespassed into the house of the second respondent on 8.12.2009 and attacked him. It was further contended that the matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and first respondent existed for just one week and they never lived together in the shared household. He sought the dismissal of the petition.

4. PWs. 1 to 4 were examined on the side of the petitioners and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. DW-1 to DW-8 were examined and Exts.D1 to D22 were marked on the side of the respondents. Exts.C1 and X1 were marked as court exhibits. After trial, the trial court passed the following order in favour of the petitioners:

“In the Result:

(a) This M.C. is allowed in part.

(b) The respondent