Courts exercise revisional jurisdiction to enhance maintenance and rental relief under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, based on current economic factors like inflation. Additionally, residence orders under S.19 cannot exclude female relatives from shared households if they possess an inherent right to reside therein.

ORDER :

G. Girish, J.

The various reliefs granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in CMP No.1822/2007, a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short), and the modified reliefs granted by the Additional Sessions Court IV, Kollam, in the appeals preferred against the verdict of the learned Magistrate, are under challenge in these revision petitions filed at the instance of both parties. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereinafter in their respective capacities as petitioner and respondents as they figure in the proceedings before the Trial Court.

2. The petitioner and the 1st respondent, after their marriage on 17.03.1995, resided together at Saudi Arabia, the place of their employment. The petitioner returned to India in connection with her delivery of their elder daughter on 14.07.1997. She was not able to return to Saudi Arabia due to the congenital mental illness and heart disease suffered by the child. While so, the 2nd daughter of the petitioner was born on 15.08.2003. The petitioner would contend that she was gifted with 70 sovereigns of gold and an amount of Rs.2 lakh at the time of her marriage, and that a considerable portion of the aforesaid assets were made use of for the purchase of 15 cents of land in the name of the 1st respondent and for the construction of a house by name ‘KR Sadanam’ in that property. The petitioner claimed to have been residing in the aforesaid house along with the 1st respondent till issues arose between them in the year 2004, when a lady claiming to be the 1st wife of the 1st respondent arrived there with a child aged 15 years, whom she claimed to be procreated by the 1st respondent. The petitioner would further contend that the respondents 2 and 3, who are the mother and the sister respectively of the 1st respondent, were also brought to the above house by the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, she had given 30 sovereigns of gold to the husband of the 3rd respondent, which was not returned so far. The petitioner would further allege that the respondents 1 to 3 perpetrated physical and mental violence against her after the issues arose between them. The petitioner had approached the Family Court concerned for maintenance against the 1st respondent and for prohibitory orders against the respondents 2 and 3. She also filed a complaint against the 1st respondent for the commission of offence under Section 498A . After knowing about the illicit relationship of the 1st respondent with another lady, the petitioner sought the relief of judicial separation with the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is said to have been forcefully evicted by the respondents from the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’, where she had been residing along with her children. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner approached the Protection Officer seeking reliefs under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Protection Officer made over the above complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, and accordingly, the proceedings commenced against the respondents.

3. In the counter filed, the respondents strongly disputed the contentions raised by the petitioner. The maintainability of the petition was challenged stating the reason that the Act was not in force at the time when the domestic violence involved in this case commenced. The respondents further contended that the petitioner had voluntarily