ORDER : G.GIRISH, J. The common judgment rendered by the II nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, in Crl.A.Nos.174 & 175/2024 is under challenge in these revisions. The appellant in the above appeals was the petitioner in M.C.No.20/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kozhikode, a case filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (in short, ‘PWDV Act’). Before the learned Magistrate, the aggrieved person filed C.M.P.No.1081/2023 under Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act, seeking various interim reliefs of protection order, residence order, maintenance order etc. C.M.P.No.3955/2023 was filed by the aggrieved person before the learned Magistrate for getting back her original title deeds of property from the respondent. The learned Magistrate dismissed both the petitions stating the reason that the petitioner had suppressed material facts before the court, and hence the affidavit filed by her did not inspire confidence of the court to hold that a prima facie case of domestic violence is established. The Appellate Court found fault with the learned Magistrate for arriving at the conclusion that there was no prima facie evidence of domestic violence, before the commencement of evidence in the said case. The Appellate Court observed in the impugned common judgment that if there was no prima facie evidence of domestic violence, the petitioner cannot be considered as an aggrieved person under the PWDV Act, and hence the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the original petition itself as not maintainable. With the above observation, the Appellate Court remanded back C.M.P.Nos.1081/2023 & 3955/2023 to the learned Magistrate with the direction to have fresh disposal. Aggrieved by the above common judgment of the remand of the Appellate Court, the respondent in M.C. has filed these revision petitions. 2. The first petitioner before the learned Magistrate is a Dentist by profession. The respondent, her husband, is an Anesthetist. The petitioners 2 & 3 are the children born in their wedlock, who have now attained the age of majority. The first petitioner, admittedly, had been afflicted with cancer, and was undergoing treatment for the same. In addition to the allegations of physical and mental harassment, the first petitioner would contend that the respondent did not care to meet the expenses of her treatment or to provide financial assistance. The first petitioner, admittedly, had been afflicted with cancer, and was undergoing treatment for the same. In addition to the allegations of physical and mental harassment, the first petitioner would contend that the respondent did not care to meet the expenses of her treatment or to provide financial assistance. It is on the basis of the aforesaid contentions that she approached the learned Magistrate with the petition under Section 12 of the PWDV Act. She also sought various interim reliefs as per the CMPs referred above. Relying on the records produced by the respondent, the learned Magistrate found that he had made payments for the treatment of the first petitioner, and also for the educational expenses of the petitioners 2 & 3. The learned Magistrate further observed that the first petitioner had suppressed the fact that she had commenced the functioning of a dental clinic in the year 2022, where she, along with seven other Doctors, have been working. The learned Magistrate also found fault with the first petitioner for not producing the account statements along with assets and liability affidavit to show that she was not having sufficient means to maintain herself. It is for the above reason that the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the first petitioner has resorted to suppression of material facts, and hence she was disqualified to seek the interim reliefs prayed for in the aforesaid C.M.Ps. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, who is the revision petitioner herein. 4. The Appellate Court has not at all dealt with in its judgment about the reasoning adopted by the learned Magistrate for arriving at the conclusion that there was suppression of material facts on the part of the first petitioner. Nothing has been stated in the impugned common judgment of the Appellate Court as to whether the learned Magistrate had gone wrong in arriving at the aforesaid finding on the basis of the records produced by the respondent. Instead, what has been stated in the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court is that the learned Magistrate was not right in arriving at the finding that there is no prima facie case for the petitioner without taking evidence in that case. Instead, what has been stated in the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court is that the learned Magistrate was not right in arriving at the finding that there is no prima facie case for the petitioner without taking evidence in that case. The fact that the learned Magistrate had made the above observations solely for the purpose of deciding the interim applications filed by the petitioner, was lost sight of by the Appellate Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Appellate Court seems to have made the observations in the impugned judgment, as if the learned magistrate had disposed of the original petition itself. 5. As far as the interim orders passed under Section 23 of the PWDV Act are concerned, the decisions rendered by the learned Magistrate declining the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, cannot be found to be wrong. The first petitioner has not offered any plausible explanation as to why she did not reveal that she had commenced a dental clinic in her own name in the year 2022, and that she along with seven other Doctors have been working in that hospital. So also, she has no answer to the documents which the respondent had produced before the learned Magistrate showing that he had expended amount for her treatment, and also for the payment of educational expenses of the petitioners 2 & 3. Furthermore, the first petitioner has not explained the reason why she could not produce the statement of accounts for the past three years with the assets and liability affidavit. In that view of the matter, the learned Magistrate cannot be found to be at fault with for declining the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in the aforesaid CMPs. However, while disposing of the main petition, the learned Magistrate has to appreciate the evidence adduced from both sides and arrive at the finding untrammeled and uninhibited by her previous findings in the orders passed in the interim applications. Therefore, the remand to the case of the Trial Court is well and good, but the observations made by the Appellate Court in the common judgment rendered by it in appeal, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the remand to the case of the Trial Court is well and good, but the observations made by the Appellate Court in the common judgment rendered by it in appeal, cannot be accepted. Therefore the impugned common judgment rendered by the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside, though the case has to be remanded back to the learned Magistrate for proceeding further with the evidence in the main petition. In the result, these revision petitions stand allowed as follows: (i) The impugned common judgment rendered by the Appellate Court stands set aside. (ii) The remand of the case to the Trial Court is upheld. (iii) The order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.M.P.Nos.1081/2023 & 3955/2023 are upheld. (iv) The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the main petition filed in the M.C., untrammeled and uninhibited by her observations in the orders passed in the aforesaid CMPs.