ORDER

The petitioner herein is the 1st respondent in M.C.No.137/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Palakkad. The aforesaid complaint was submitted by the 2nd respondent herein under Sections 12 and 19 the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as DV Act) seeking various reliefs under Section 19(1)A, 19(1)B and 19(1)C.

2. The basic averments contained in the said complaint which is produced as Annexure A is that, the 1st respondent who is the wife of the brother of the petitioner, is entitled for a right of residence in the tharavadu house situated in the petition A schedule property. She also sought for a relief that movables shown in petition B Schedule, are belonging to her and the same shall not be destroyed. According to the 2nd respondent, her husband was a co-owner of the said house, who passed away on 15.02.2009. Until his death, she was residing in the house along with her husband and thereafter she started residing along with her brother’s son, as she became lonely consequent to the death of her husband. It is to be noted that the 2nd respondent does not have any children. It was contended that, she is now being obstructed from entering into the tharavadu house by the petitioner herein and the other respondents in the Annexure A complaint. The petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent in Annexure A are the brothers of deceased husband of the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent in Annexure A is the wife of the petitioner herein. According to her, the Annexure A complaint was submitted in the aforesaid circumstances.

3. The case of the petitioner herein is that, the 2nd respondent cannot be treated as an aggrieved person as defined under Section 2(a) of DV Act, as there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein. It is pointed out that in order to constitute a domestic relationship, the parties must have been lived or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household. It is pointed that the 2nd respondent was not a resident of the building which is the subject matter of the dispute and even according to her, she left the aforesaid residential building after the death of her husband in the year 2009. On the basis of the above contentions, the petitioner seeks to the quash the proceedings in M.C. No.137/2015.

4. Heard Sri.T.Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Santhosh P.Poduval, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Public Prosecutor, Sri.Aravind V.

Mathew.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that, in this case the provisions of DV Act cannot be invoked, as the 2nd respondent cannot be treated as an aggrieved person as she is not a person having domestic relationship with the petitioner herein or with the other respondents in the Annexure A complaint. It is pointed out that as per Section 2(f) of DV Act, domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who lived or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household. In this case, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner was not a person who lived in the building which is subject matter of the proceedings, in a domestic relationship, in recent past with the petitioner herein or other respondents in the Annexure A complaint. The specific case put forward by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that even going by the address shown in Annexure A complaint it can be seen that the 2nd respondent herein is residing in separately. My attention was also brought to Annexure C judgment rendered in O.S. No.687/2011 by the Sub Court, Palakkad which was a partition suit between the parties herein in which the 2nd respondent was the 1st defendant. The subject matter of the dispute was the tharavadu properties of the petitioner as well as the husband of the 2nd respondent. In the said suit also the address of the 2nd respondent is shown as different from