S. Nagamuthu, J.

1. The petitioner in Crl. RC.(MD). No. 212 of 2015 is the wife of one Mr. R. Muruganantham. The petitioner in Crl. RC.(MD). No. 532 of 2013, Mr. R. Vinayagam, (the first respondent in Crl. RC.(MD). No. 212 of 2015), is the brother of the said Mr. R. Muruganantham. The second respondent in both the Criminal Revision Cases Mrs. R. Suseela is the mother of the petitioner in Crl. RC.(MD). No. 532 of 2013 and the mother-in-law of the petitioner in Crl. RC.(MD). No. 212 of 2015. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the order of the Trial Court. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The father of the first respondent Mr. Raju Udayar is no more. Mr. Raju Udayar has left behind two sons, viz., Mr. R. Vinayagam, the petitioner in Crl. RC.(MD). No. 532 of 2013 and Mr. R. Muruganantham, the husband of the petitioner in Crl. RC.(MD). No. 212 of 2015. Mrs. Prema is happily living with her husband - Mr. R. Muruganantham. The marriage between them was celebrated on 09.09.2007. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a Motorcycle and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of purchasing household articles was presented to the bridegroom and the bride by her father. The said amount was actually paid to the first respondent. After the marriage, it is alleged that the petitioner and her husband were residing along with the first respondent - Mr. R. Vinayagam and the second respondent - Mrs. Suseela, at the house, bearing Door No. 51, Vellalar Street, Vallam, Thanjavur. According to the petitioner, the said house is the ancestral property of her husband and the first respondent - Mr. R. Vinayagam and the same remains undivided.

1.1. It is her further case that the said property was purchased by Mr. Raju Udayar, but, till his death, no sale deed was obtained from the vendors. Mr. Raju Udayar died in the year 1971. According to the petitioner, at that time, the husband of the petitioner - Mr. R. Muruganantham was a minor. Since the first respondent - Mr. R. Vinayagam was the head of the family, the sale deed was obtained in his name on behalf of the joint family. That is how, the petitioner, her husband and the respondents were residing in the said house.

1.2. While so, on 27.02.2010, the respondents, viz., the brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner, harassed the petitioner demanding more amount from her father. They attempted to manhandle her. It is her further case that out of fear, she rushed into a room in the house and bolted the same from outside. But, the first respondent broke open the door, entered into the room, attacked her and pushed her out of the house. The electricity connection to the said room was also disconnected. He also abused her pointing out that she is a physically challenged woman. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondents caused domestic violence to her. The first respondent has also misappropriated a sum of Rs. 45,000/- given at the time of marriage for the purpose of purchasing the Motorcycle, as he did not purchase any Motorcycle for her husband. With the above allegation, the petitioner made a complaint before the Protection Officer, at Thanjavur, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (for brevity, "the Act"). The Protection Officer held an enquiry and finally submitted a report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Thanjavur, alleging that there was domestic violence caused to the petitioner by the respondents and recommending for an order for shared household in the said house and also for monetary relief.

1.3. On appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the respondents filed an appropriate counter, wherein it was contended that there was no such violence caused at all by them. It was further contended that the house in question was purchased exclusively by the first respondent, in which the husband of the petitioner has got no s