Crl. Rev. Pet. No.779 of 2024 is carried by the 1st petitioner/husband along with others, challenging the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.10 of 2024 of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. Crl. Rev. Pet. No.1034 of 2024 is preferred by an alleged stranger (brother of the 1st revision petitioner in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.779 of 2024), who purchased the alleged shared household. Leave was sought for to challenge the same judgment in the Appeal afore-referred, which was granted and accordingly, he also challenges the judgment in the said Crl. Appeal, bearing no.10 of 2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, as also, the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.

3. Before adverting to the arguments advanced, it is necessary to take note of the course of legal 2025:KER:16343 proceedings, which culminated in the impugned judgment. The respondents herein preferred M.C. No.28 of 2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna, seeking various reliefs in terms of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act . Crl.M.P. No.2087 of 2023 was also filed seeking various interim reliefs, including a residence Order in the shared household, a house bearing No.VII/659 of Puzhakkattri Grama Panchayat.

4. Except the relief of residence order, other reliefs sought for were granted by the learned Magistrate, as per Order dated 23.12.2023. The primary reason for refusing the said relief is contained in paragraph No.9 of the Order, wherein the learned Magistrate took stock of a report of domestic enquiry conducted by the Women Protection Officer. The report speaks of an alleged illicit relationship between the first respondent and her son-in-law, which, according to the Protection Officer, is the root cause of all problems. On the strength of such report, the learned Magistrate found that the Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 7 2025:KER:16343 bonafides of the 1st respondent/wife is at stake, and the veracity of her claims will have to be established in trial. However, the domestic relationship between the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent herein was acknowledged, on the basis of which other reliefs were granted.

5. Challenging refusal of the residence order, Crl.A.No.10 of 2024 was filed by respondents 1 and 2 before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. By the impugned judgment, the appeal was allowed and the relief for residence order was also allowed. The learned Sessions Judge found that, it is quite unjustified to come to a conclusion based on the report of the Women Protection Officer that there was an illicit relationship between the 1st respondent and her son-in-law, which can be decided only after trial. The learned Sessions Judge took stock of the fact that there has been a domestic relationship between the 1st petitioner/husband and the 1st respondent/wife and that they were residing in the shared household. To arrive at the latter part of the Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 8 2025:KER:16343 above finding, learned Sessions Judge relied on the report of the Women Protection Officer, which depicts the presence of the respondents at the time of her visit to the shared household. Instances of domestic violence have already been found by the learned Magistrate, which was not under challenge before the learned Sessions Judge. On such circumstances, any attempt to oust the 1st respondent/wife from the house is liable to be prevented, especially in view of the explanation to Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, was the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, that part of the Order of the learned Magistrate, which refused the residence Order, was interfered with and relief granted by allowing a residence Order as well.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner first canvassed the proposition that the marital tie between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent has been severed by the pronouncement of Talaq on 04.03.2022, whereafter, the 1st respondent has left the matrimonial house. The contention raised is that, once the matrimonial tie Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 9 2025:KER:16343 is severed, the former wife is not entitled to any protective residence Order in the erstwhile shared household. In support of the same the learned counsel relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in Ramachandra Warrior v. Jayasree and Another [2021(2) KHC 504], and also on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Jayasree v. Indrapalan [2024 (4) KHC 474]. More or less on the same point, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of another learned Single Judge in Sudheer D. v. Anusha R. Nair [2025 (1) KHC 329], wherein it was held that a divorced wife is not entitled to the benefit of a residence Order after divorce.

7. The second point canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the property, where the shared household is situated, was sold to the revision petitioner in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.1034 of 2024 on 15.03.2023. The same was preceded by an agreement dated 20.01.2022. The instant M.C was filed only on 29.03.2023, wherefore, the 1st respondent/wife is admittedly not residing in the shared household, as Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 10 2025:KER:16343 on the date of the institution of the case. She is, therefore, not entitled to a residence Order as claimed for. The learned counsel would also hasten to add that there was no domestic relationship between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent after 04.03.2022, namely the date of pronouncement of talaq. In the absence of a domestic relationship, the 1st respondent/wife is not entitled to any other relief, whatsoever, is the submission made.

8. Thirdly, learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that, the learned Sessions Judge had given a myopic interpretation to the definition of domestic violence under Section 3 of the Act, which resulted in extreme injustice to a stranger, who purchased the property, much before the initiation of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act . On such premise, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.779 of 2024 seeks to set aside the impugned judgment of the Sessions Court, Manjeri.

Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 11 2025:KER:16343

9. Toeing in line with the above submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.1034 of 2024 would submit that he took the possession of the property on 15.03.2023 itself, on which date, the 1st respondent/wife is not residing in the shared household. On 02.04.2023, based on an interim order passed (Annexure-C), respondents 1 and 2, aided by the SHO concerned, entered the shared household. They have vacated the same, pursuant to the refusal of the residence Order by the learned Magistrate. Again, they came back on 20.07.2024, after the impugned Annexure-E judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner herein is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and the inter-necine disputes between the 1st petitioner/husband and the 1st respondent/wife cannot impact or impinge his rights under a valid sale deed. It was also pointed out that a suit has been instituted before the Munsiff Court, Perinthalmanna as O.S. No.208 of 2024, seeking to evict the respondents herein from the shared household.

Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 12 2025:KER:16343

10. Refuting to the above contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents would first invite the attention of this Court to the definition of a 'shared household' as per Section 2(s) , to point out that it is enough that the 1st respondent wife had lived in domestic relationship, at the household, at any stage, either singly or along with the respondent. It was also pointed out that, in a given case where there was no physical residence by the wife, still the household will become a shared household, provided the person aggrieved has a right, title, interest or equity over the property where the shared household is situated. Accordingly, a mere right to reside in her husband's property is enough to make the household a shared one, in terms of the definition, is the argument raised. On Talaq, the learned counsel would deny the claim of the revision petitioner/husband. It was submitted that there was no such Talaq; at any rate, no Talaq in terms of law. As an alternative argument, it was pointed out that after the introduction of the Muslim Women Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 13 2025:KER:16343 (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which has been given retrospective effect from 19.09.2018, the pronouncement of Talaq is void and illegal, besides attracting penal consequences. Learned counsel relied upon a three-judges bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja [2020 (5) KHC 496], to point out that the law laid down in S.R. Batra and Another v. Taruna Batra [2007 (1) KHC 536], that a claim under Section 17(1) for residence in a shared household is possible only in a case where the house belongs or taken on rent by the husband or in a case where the house belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member, has been held bad law (See paragraph No.84 in this regard). Based on the said decision , it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that, the household, will be a shared household even if it belongs to a third person. Say for example, a premises, which has been taken on rent, provided the respondent/wife had either resided in that shared household at some point of time or had a right to reside there. Another judgment of the Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 14 2025:KER:16343 Hon'ble Supreme Court is pressed into service by the counsel for the respondent, titled Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi [2022 KHC OnLine 6542], where the question raised was whether the domestic relationship should be subsisting to seek a relief under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act. It was also considered as to whether the aggrieved person should have actually lived or resided with respondent at the time of making the allegations. Both were answered in the negative, in paragraph No.52. It was held that the residence of the wife with the person against whom allegations have been levelled at the time of commission of violence, is not mandatory, when there is a relationship by consanguinity, marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage. It was also held that there should be a subsisting domestic relation between the aggrieved person and the respondent, which does not, however, mean that at the time of filing the application by an aggrieved person, the domestic relationship should be subsisting. It is enough that they have so lived at any point of time, or had the right to live, and has Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 15 2025:KER:16343 been subjected to domestic violence. Based on the said judgment , it was argued by the learned counsel that, the absence of domestic relationship, now canvassed by the revision petitioners, cannot be of any moment, inasmuch as the marriage is admitted and the severance thereof is not even prima facie established. In this regard, the learned counsel would specifically point out the findings of the learned Magistrate that the claim of severance of matrimonial tie by pronouncement of talaq has not been substantiated by any material, whatsoever, on behalf of the revision petitioners herein.

11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds no tangible ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. This Court specifically notice that the Orders were passed at the initial stage of the proceedings. The M.C is still pending. The original Order was passed in CMP No.2087 of 2023 in the pending M.C. The state of affairs, which prevailed as on the date of the institution of the case, has to be Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 16 2025:KER:16343 reckoned for the purpose of interim reliefs. It has been reported by the Women Protection Officer that she found the respondents (wife and daughter) in the shared household, when she paid a visit. This has been taken stock of by both the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. The learned Magistrate refused the relief of residence Order only on the basis of the enquiry report of the Women Protection Officer, which suggests that the 1st respondent wife is having an illicit relation with her son-in-law. This is interfered with by the learned Sessions Judge by holding that, it is too premature to find so, without any supporting evidence, except the report of the Women Protection Officer. It was found that the daughter of the 1st respondent/wife is married and they are living together along with the son-in-law, which cannot, however, lead to any remote inference that there is an illicit relationship between the 1 st respondent and her son-in-law. This finding of the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference at this stage, the opinion of this Court, especially in the absence of any cogent Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 17 2025:KER:16343 evidence. To allege an adulterous relationship against a person is a serious affair and the same has to be done with all seriousness it deserves. At any rate, such an adulterous relation cannot be taken stock of, in the absence of cogent material evidence to refuse a relief to the 1st respondent, especially when domestic relationship by virtue of the marriage between herself and the 1st petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet. No.779 of 2024 is admitted.

12. Coming to the claim of severance of matrimonial tie based on pronouncement of talaq, this Court can only endorse the findings of the learned Magistrate to the effect that no supporting material, whatsoever, has been produced by the 1st petitioner/husband herein. It was argued by the learned counsel for the 1st petitioner that, the severance of matrimonial tie by pronouncement of talaq was not disputed by the 1st respondent herein. It may be true, that there is no pleading specifically denying the claim based on talaq. However, the same was disputed at the very first Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 18 2025:KER:16343 instance before the learned Magistrate itself, which is why the learned Magistrate arrived at a conclusion that the claim is not supported by any evidence, whatsoever. Non-traverse of a pleading in an M.C proceeding in the counter cannot be fatal, especially when the parties are only at the initial stage of the proceedings, that is to say, at the stage of securing interim Orders. The said contention will stand repelled therefore.

13. It could thus be seen that the marriage is admitted and there has been a domestic relation between the 1st petitioner/husband and the 1st respondent/wife. The definition given to a shared household in terms of Section 2(s) would not persuade this Court to hold that the residence in question was not a shared household, in so far as the 1 st respondent/wife is concerned. It is not disputed before this Court that the 1st respondent and the 1st petitioner had lived together as husband and wife in that residential building, at least upto pronouncement of talaq on 04.03.2022. This answers Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 19 2025:KER:16343 the requirement of the building being a shared household. Once the domestic relationship and the residence in the shared household is prima facie established, that cannot be a rhyme or reason to refuse the relief of a residential Order. This Court, therefore, cannot find any infirmity of legality with respect to the judgment impugned.

14. Coming to Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1034 of 2024, this Court finds that the purchaser of the property cannot espouse a better case than what the 1st petitioner/husband could espouse. It is important to note that the revision petitioner in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.1034 of 2024 is not a complete stranger, but the direct brother of the 1st petitioner/husband himself. Even going by the very showing made by the 1 st petitioner/husband, talaq was pronounced on 04.03.2022. The revision petitioner was quite aware of the disputes and dissensions between the 1st petitioner/husband and 1st respondent/wife. It was while so that he entered into an agreement for sale, which culminated in a sale deed on 15.03.2023. At any Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 20 2025:KER:16343 rate, he cannot seek annulment of the impugned judgment claiming and projecting himself as a bonafide purchaser.

15. In the result, both these criminal revision petitions fail, and the same would stand dismissed.

16. It is clarified that all the findings and observations made in this common Order is only for the purpose of this revision, and both the M.C., as also, the suit O.S. No. 208 of 2024, will be considered by the respective courts in accordance with law, untrammeled by any of the observations contained herein. There will be a direction to the learned Magistrate to expedite the proceedings in the subject M.C. to the extent possible.

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE mea Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024 21 2025:KER:16343 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1034/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF 16.29 ARES OF LAND ALONG WITH THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN SY. NO: 27/1- 2 IN PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE, FROM REVISION PETIITONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.01.2022 Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO: