The court emphasizes the necessity for prima facie evidence in petitions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

1. There is no representation for the petitioner. It is not the first time the revision petitioner has left the matter without representation. As such, this Court deems it appropriate to pass an order after going through the records and after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the respondent.  

2. The revision petitioner (V. Krishnaveni) is the mother of Rajkumar, the first respondent herein. A. Gopalakrishnan, the 2nd respondent is the father - in - law of Rajkumar. The revision petitioner is a widow. Claiming that she was living in the residential house bearing door No. 6, Nagalingam Pillai Street, Thiruchuli Road, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District which was purchased by her husband in 1991; that her husband died on 22/02/2008 and that the first respondent, who got the property by virtue of a gift deed executed by her husband failed to maintain the revision petitioner and on the other hand, has driven her out of the said house, preferred a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukottai to give her police protection to stay in the above said house. Of course after the failure on the part of the police to take action on her complaint, Crl OP (MD) No. 8835 of 2009 came to be filed and this Court by order dated 20/10/2009 directed the police to take necessary action pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner dated 11/08/2009. As she could not enter the said house and reside therein even thereafter she preferred a complaint against the first respondent, as if he had committed an offence of domestic violence at the instigation of the 2nd respondent, who is none other than the father - in - law of the first respondent.  

3. Based on the above mentioned allegation, the revision petitioner filed a petition under S.18, S.19 and S.23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for the following reliefs:
(i) Protection order under S.18 of the said Act, prohibiting the respondent No. 1 and 2 from committing any act of domestic violence on the revision petitioner and prohibiting the respondent No.1 from alienating the property bearing door No. 6 Nagalingam Pillai Street, Thiruchuli Road, Arupukkottai, Virudhunagar District, which the petitioner claims to be a shared household;  
(ii) Restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the petitioner of the above said shared household at bearing door No. 6, Nagalingam Pillai Street, Thiruchuli Road, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District after she would begin her stay in the said shared house and for giving protection to her through police; and  
(iii) For an interim direction, directing the first respondent to permit the revision petitioner to reside in the said house.

4. The said petition, taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai as Crl MP No. 120 of 2010, was resisted by the first respondent on the ground that the said Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits also, the said petition was resisted. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after hearing, passed an order on 16/06/2010 dismissing the said petition.  

5. As against the said order, the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court in CA No. 57 of 2010 which came to be disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai by judgment dated 07/03/2011. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai, upon hearing the appeal, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court that the revision petitioner had not made out any prima facie case for any of the reliefs sought for under S.18, S.19 and S.23 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

6. The learned appellate Judge has ad