The Court emphasized the need for logical reasoning behind complaints and the potential consequences of granting residence rights in disputed households under the Domestic Violence Act.

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, in Crl.M.P.No.2186 of 2017 in D.V.A.No.17 of 2016 dated 05.12.2017.)

1. This criminal revision petition is preferred by the petitioners/2nd and 3 rd respondents against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III of Erode, in Crl.M.P.No.2186 of 2017 in D.V.A.No.17 of 2016 dated 5.12.2017.

2. Brief case of the petitioners

The facts of the case is that the respondent filed the petition under section 19 of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate sharing the residential right at Door No 6/40-1, Balathandauthapani Road, Vaiyapuri Nagar, Erode. Both the 1st petitioner and the respondent maintained their matrimonial life only for a period of 3 weeks and after that due to the cruelty committed by the petitioners, the respondent was forced to live in their parents house and her sister aged about 25 years is ready for marriage for which the parents were actively searching for suitable bridegroom, it is not possible for the respondent to live along with her parents with unmarried sister, hence the respondent filed the petition under section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act.

3. The brief case of the 1st petitioner is that he was married to the respondent on 11.4.2016 and the marriage was registered before the sub registrar on 12.4.2016. The 1st petitioner and the respondent entered the matrimonial home on 13.4.2016 and immediately that day itself, the respondent started to harass the 1st petitioner to reconvey the house property in her name. Further the respondent impliedly started mental torture to the 1st petitioner and committed cruelty by quarreling with the 2nd and 3 rd petitioners without any reasons. Further the respondent threatened the 1st petitioner that she will commit suicide if the 1st petitioner questioned her act. Finally due to unbearable mental torture and harassment the 1st petitioner issued legal notice to the respondent and the entire litigation marched to the police station and after attending so many enquiries in the police station, on 17.8.2016 and 11.3.2017, the respondent received all her jewels and sridana properties given at the time of marriage. Now to make permanent harassment, the respondent filed the case before the learned judicial Magistrate in D.V.A.No.17 of 2017 and filed the Crl.M.P.No.2186 of 2007 seeking residential right.

4. The learned trial Court after hearing both parties allowed the application field by the wife, the respondent. Aggrieved over the same the petitioners filed the revision.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the trial Court allowing the respondent’s petition under section 19(1) (A) of D.V Act, which was seeking residential right is against law and materially irregular.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed the above petition for sharing the residence at Door No 6/40-1, Balathandayuthapani Road, Vaiyapuri Nagar, Erode, without producing any proof to show that the said premises is belonged to the respondent’s husband. Infact, the said house is self acquired property of the mother of the husband. Hence seeking direction to reside there in is unsustainable, since the house itself is not belonged to the respondent’s husband.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent’s husband namely the son of the petitioners never resided therein as admittedly he was living in USA for the past seven years. Even after his marriage he along with his wife namely the respondent herein stayed for a few days only till their departure to USA. Even after their return from USA neither the son of the petitioners nor the respondent visited the house. Therefore, the respondent has no locus stand to seek for residence order.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the trial Co