JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the judgment dated 07.01.2019, passed in C.A.No.64 of 2017, on the file of III Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli and the order dated 06.09.2017, passed in M.C.No.11 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tirunelveli.)

1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in C.A.No.64 of 2017, dated 07.01.2019, on the file of III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, modifying the order passed in M.C.No.11 of 2016, dated 06.09.2017, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will be referred as per their status and ranking in the trial Court.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the daughter of the first respondent, that the first respondent and her deceased husband – Vethamuthu Victor had two daughters M.Merlin – petitioner herein and Golta and a son – Antony Asir Daniel – second respondent herein and that the third respondent is the wife of the second respondent. The petitioner, by alleging domestic violence against her own mother, brother and brother''s wife, has filed the case in M.C.No. 11 of 2016 claiming protection orders under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, compensation under Section 22 and monthly maintenance under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

4. The first respondent on her behalf and on behalf of the other respondents, have filed a counter statement raising serious objections. During enquiry, the petitioner has examined herself as P.W.1 and exhibited 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The respondents have examined the first respondent as R.W.1 and one Chellathurai as R.W.2 and exhibited 7 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.7.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed an order dated 06.09.2017 partly allowing the application and thereby granting protection orders directing the respondents not to harass the petitioner by evicting her from the shared household till her marriage, residence order directing the respondents not to oust the petitioner from the shared household; directing the respondents not to make alienation or encumbrance over the property situated in Door No.35/2, St.Pauls Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli without permission of the Court; directed the first respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- as monthly rent to the petitioner and directing the first respondent to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- from the date of petition till her marriage. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner as well as the first respondent have preferred appeals in C.A.No.64 of 2017 and C.A.No.74 of 2018 respectively. The learned Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, upon considering the evidence available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned common judgment dated 07.01.2019, partly allowing the appeal in C.A.No.64 of 2017 and thereby modified the order of the trial Court, by reducing the compensatin to Rs.3,00,000/- and enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs.12,000/-. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed in C.A.No.64 of 2017, the first respondent has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

6. Admittedly, the first respondent has not preferred any revision with regard to C.A.No.74 of 2018. The revision petitioner/first respondent has taken a stand that the first respondent – mother cannot be considered as a respondent as found in the provision of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and that the Courts below had misconstrued the definition of the “respondent” and wrongly passed the impugned order and judgment against the petitioner, But when the revision was taken up for hearing, the learned