The court affirmed that a woman has the right to reside in a shared household under the DV Act, regardless of ownership of other properties, emphasizing her status as an aggrieved person.

ORDER :

M.B. Snehalatha, J.

Challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment in Crl.A No.183/2015 of Court of Session, Palakkad. Revision petitioners are the respondents in M.C.No.39/2012 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Palakkad which was a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'DV Act, 2005’). The said M.C was filed by the petitioner contending that respondents 1 to 5 in the M.C who are her in-laws tried to oust her from the shared household and also caused obstruction to her and her children from entering the shared household and their peaceful residence therein.

2. Respondents in M.C resisted the petition contending that there were no acts of domestic violence as alleged; that after the death of her husband, petitioner is residing at her parental house and she never used to visit the matrimonial home and therefore, she is not an aggrieved person and there was no domestic relationship as defined under the DV Act, 2005 and she is not entitled to the relief sought under the DV Act.

3. After trial, the learned Magistrate dismissed the M.C. on a finding that the petitioner in M.C failed to prove that there was any domestic relationship between her and the respondents; that she failed to establish that she is an ‘aggrieved person’ as defined in the DV Act, 2005. Against the order in M.C.No.39/2012, the petitioner preferred appeal as Crl.A No.183/2015 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad. The said appeal was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and the respondents in M.C were restrained from committing any acts of domestic violence against the petitioner and her children. Respondents in M.C. were also restrained from causing any obstruction to the petitioner and her children from entering the shared household and their peaceful living in the shared household.

4. Revision petitioners/respondents in M.C.No.39/2012 assailed the appellate court judgment on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish the domestic relationship between her and the respondents; that she failed to establish that she is an aggrieved person as defined under the DV Act, 2005; that the Sessions Court ought to have taken into account the fact that the petitioner owns her own property and after the death of her husband she never lived in her matrimonial home and therefore the Sessions Court went wrong in granting an order under the DV Act against the respondents as there was no domestic relationship between them and the petitioner and there was no domestic violence.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The point for consideration is whether the judgment impugned needs any interference by this Court.

7. Petitioner filed the M.C. under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking protection order and residence order under the said Act.

8. Before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioner in M.C is entitled to get a protection order and residence order as sought by her, let us have a look at the definition of 'domestic violence', 'aggrieved person', 'shared household' and 'domestic relationship' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

9. Section 3 of DV Act, 2005 defines 'domestic violence' as:

“3. Definition of domestic violence.— For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it—

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (