1. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This revision petition is filed against the order of the Trial Court dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner against respondents No.2 to 5 and directing the office to delete their names from the petition by carrying amendment and also a direction was given to respondent No.1 or any person acting on his behalf, not to disturb the petitioner from the schedule property mentioned in the application without due process of law and the said order has been challenged before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.336/2022. The Appellate Court, having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the points, whether the petitioner proves that she has shared household with respondents No.2 to 5; whether trial Court has erred in dismissing the petition under section 12 of the PWDV Act; and whether it requires an interference and answered all the points in negative and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have failed to consider the definition of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short) i.e., shared house and learned counsel also read the entire Section 2(s) of the Act to contend that the petitioner is living in one portion of the joint family property. In fact, she was a member of the joint family. Whether she is living in the first floor or any portion of the building, the entire building has to be taken as 'shared house'. The definition of shared house has been wrongly interpreted by both the Courts while considering I.A.No.1. It is contended that the word 'domestic violence' has definition itself in Section 3 of the Act and both the Courts below failed to take note of Section 3. Section 3(b) clearly speaks that harasses, harms, injuries or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security and both the Courts below have failed to consider the definition of Section 3 also. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application. Learned counsel, also during his course of argument, would contend that even respondents No.4 and 5 are residing elsewhere and not in the shared house but the fact that respondents No.1 to 3 are residing in very same building and also specific allegations are made in the petition and same is brought to the notice of this Court at para 8 of the petition. When specific allegation is made against all the respondents, even though not specifically pleaded against respondents No.2 and 3, but the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have segregated the same and considered allegation only in respect of respondent No.1-husband and not in respect of respondents No.2 and 3 and also respondents No.4 and 5. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, the orders passed by the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court to contend that the Appellate Court has also committed error in accepting the reasons of the Trial Court and hence, requires interference of this Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that it is nothing but implication of family members while seeking the remedy and admittedly, respondents No.4 and 5 are not residing in shared house and also learned counsel submitted that when the marriage took place in the year 2015 and they were cordial till 2022. Thereafter, the dispute arisen between the parties. Learned counsel also vehemently contend that when the problem started between respondents No.2 and 3, they began to live together in ground floor and even accommodation was given to the husband and wife at first floor and due to no cordiality between the husband and the wife, the husband left the house and never caused disturbance to the possession of the wife at any point of time. The same is taken note by the Trial Court while dismissing the application. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of material on record, comes to the conclusion that there is no error on the part of order of the Trial Court. The petitioner along with her daughter staying on the first floor, which cannot be considered as shared house of the petitioner, respondents No.2 and 3 and also reason was given that there is a separate door to the first floor, which respondents No.2 and 3 have allegedly locked is nothing but a false allegation made against respondents No.2 and 3. Hence, it does not require any interference.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and also looking into the definition of Section 2(s) as well as Section 3 of the Act, and also the reasons assigned by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Courts below committed an error in dismissing and confirming the order of dismissal of the application against respondents No.2 to 5

(ii) Whether it requires interference of this Court exercising the revisional powers and

(iii) What order

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, it is not in dispute that marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized in the year 2015. It is also not in dispute that subsequently, dispute aroused between the parties. Having perused the averments made in para (c), it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondents tormenting the petitioner everyday that she has given birth to a baby girl. Respondents harassed the petitioner by forcing the petitioner to sell her father's property and bring cash. It is also averred that when the petitioner refused their demands, respondent No.1 filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C.No.2649/2021 and the same is pending for consideration. In para (d) also, it is stated that when the petitioner strongly opposed the said matter, the respondents moved the petitioner and her daughter to the first floor of the matrimonial home to show that the petitioner has a separate home. Thereafter, respondents No.2 and 3 filed injunction suit against the petitioner seeking relief of permanent injunction in O.S.No.3430/2021 and interim order was also granted "not to disturb the peaceful atmosphere at the house of the plaintiff in the schedule property". Upon receiving this order, respondents seized to provide daily necessities to the petitioner and her daughter. The petitioner has since received help from her father to manage daily needs of the family.

7. The Appellate Court has also extracted para (e) wherein an allegation is made that on 17.02.2022, as usual, the petitioner along with her daughter, came to her matrimonial house and tried to open the door to enter the house, the door was locked and it was then noticed that respondents have deliberately changed the door lock to disturb the petitioner. The petitioner then requested respondents No.1 to 3 to handover the key of the main door to enter the house, but they refused and respondent No.1 told the petitioner to return to her father's house, otherwise bring a sum of Rs.2 Crores and register her site to her sister's name. On the next day i.e., on 18.02.2022, when the petitioner succeeded in opening the main door, respondent No.1 assaulted the petitioner where she sustained injuries on the private parts by her husband. She was later admitted to Sri Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bangalore, for treatment at 5:00 P.M., on 18.02.2022 and also the case was registered under Sections 379, 498A of IPC read with section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Having taken note of this pleading, no doubt, no specific allegation is made against respondents No.4 and 5 and the same has been rightly observed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and with regard to the allegations made against respondents No.1 to 3, specific allegations are made in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), which amounts and also comes under the purview of Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act as well as Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, with regard to the shared house is concerned. The definition of shared house under Section 2(f) is very elaborate and broad and both the Courts failed to take note of averments made in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) in respect of respondents No.1 to 3 is concerned. When the specific allegation is made against respondents No.1 to 3 and no doubt allegation of assault is made against the husband only, but invoking definition of Sections 2(s) and 3 of Domestic Violence Act is concerned, specific allegation is also made against respondents No.1 to 3 and also respondents No.2 and 3 have filed a suit for injunction and also obtained an interim order and the same is also pending for consideration.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that now they have also sought for an order for evicting the petitioner herein and without due process of law, they are not going to disturb the petitioner and the fact that the wife i.e., the petitioner herein is residing in first floor is also not in dispute and in order to go to the first floor, she has to take access from the ground floor and also the specific allegation is made with regard to locking of the main door also. When such averments are made in the petition, the Trial Court lost sight of the same and the Appellate Court also while considering and re-assessing the materials on record, lost sight of the specific pleading made by the petitioner with regard to the locking of the main door and entering the first floor with great difficulty. When such averments are made, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have committed an error in dismissing the petition against respondents No.1 to 3 and no grounds are made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction in respect of respondents No.4 and 5. Admittedly, they are residing separately and in the petition itself, different addresses are given in respect of respondents No.4 and 5 and hence, it requires interference of this Court since both the Courts below have committed an error in considering material on record and the reasons given by both the Courts below are not legal and it suffers from the legal infirmity with regard to the consideration of material on record and hence, it requires interference of this Court. Hence, I answer the points as partly affirmative.

9. In view of the discussions made above, the following:

ORDER

(i) Revision petition is allowed in part;

(ii) Impugned orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are set-aside in respect of respondents No.2 and 3 and consequently, application filed by the petitioner in respect of respondents No.2 and 3 is also allowed.