JUDGMENT : An estranged wife in domestic relationship is the petitioner herein. She filed Ext.P3 Miscellaneous Case bearing no.69/2021, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short). In that M.C, the petitioner/wife filed Ext.P8 Miscellaneous Petition bearing no.1052/2022 seeking various reliefs under Sections 18 , 19, 20 , 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 , ('D.V. Act' for short). In Ext.P8 Miscellaneous Petition, yet another petition was filed as M.P.No.827/2023 (Ext.P10) seeking a residence order, enabling the petitioner/wife to reside in the house of the respondent/husband, where the children are residing. By virtue of the impugned Ext.P12 Order, Ext.P10 petition seeking residence order was declined, on the premise that the petitioner/wife was not residing in the residential house belonging to the respondent/husband at the time of filing the application; and also for the absence of a specific averment that the said residential house is the shared household of the petitioner/wife. Ext.P12 Order is under challenge in this Original Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance upon a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi [ 2022 KHC 6542 :: 2022 (8) SCC 90 ], to contend that it is not the requirement of law that the aggrieved person under the D.V. Act should be residing in the shared household at the time of filing the petition. A 'right to live' in the shared household would suffice in seeking relief in terms of the provisions of the D.V. Act. On the strength of the judgment in Prabha Tyagi (supra), it was also contended that a women who is in domestic relationship, but living elsewhere on account of a reasonable cause, has a right to reside in the shared household and that there is no legal requirement to have a subsisting domestic relationship to enable the aggrieved person to make an application under the D.V. Act. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Family Court, Ernakulam, seriously erred in dismissing Ext.P10 petition by virtue of Ext.P12 Order, only for the reason that the petitioner was not residing in the residential house of the respondent at the time of filing the application and that there is no specific averment in Ext.P10 that the residential house is the shared household of the parties. 4. Refuting the above allegations, learned counsel for the respondent/husband pointed out that Ext.P10 application is not one in terms of Section 19 of the D.V. Act. In Ext.P10, what is espoused is not the right or necessity of the petitioner/wife to reside in the shared household; instead, what was highlighted is that there is nobody to take care of the children, who were residing along with the father of the respondent/husband, especially after the death of respondent's father. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the various legal proceedings pending by and between the petitioner and the respondent, including the one seeking custody of the children. According to the learned counsel, the attempt is to gain the custody of the children in a circuitous manner, by camouflaging a claim under the D.V. Act. Learned counsel would highlight that all the matrimonial disputes have been settled by and between the petitioner and the respondent and a compromise agreement was, in fact, executed, based upon which money and gold ornaments were returned to the petitioner/wife. However, actuated by greed, the petitioner/wife had ventured several experimental litigations, including the instant Ext.P10 application seeking a residence order in the alleged shared household. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court finds little merit in the instant Original Petition. It is true that in Prabha Tyagi (supra), the Supreme Court categorically declared that it is not mandatory for an aggrieved person to actually reside in the shared household along with persons against whom allegations of domestic violence have been levelled. An expansive interpretation to the expression 'live' or 'have at any point of time lived' as employed in Sections 2(f) and 2(s) of the D.V. Act was given, to hold that the expression carries with it 'the right to live' as contemplated in Section 17(1) of the D.V. Act, as well. An expansive interpretation to the expression 'live' or 'have at any point of time lived' as employed in Sections 2(f) and 2(s) of the D.V. Act was given, to hold that the expression carries with it 'the right to live' as contemplated in Section 17(1) of the D.V. Act, as well. Thus, it was held that an aggrieved person, who has a right to live in the shared household and upon being a victim of domestic violence, can enforce her right of residence under the provisions of the D.V. Act. The Supreme Court also took stock of the situation where a woman in domestic relationship is constrained to reside elsewhere on account of a reasonable cause, to hold that such residence elsewhere would not deprive her right to reside in the shared household, or for that matter, to seek a relief under Section 19 of the D.V. Act. 6. In the light of the law laid down in Prabha Tyagi (supra), it could possibly be held that the finding in Ext.P12 that the petitioner was not residing in the shared household at the time of filing Ext.P10 application is flawed by an error of law, in the sense that an error has been committed in construing and understanding the law on the point, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the issue does not end there. Section 19 contemplates residence orders only upon being satisfied that the domestic violence has taken place. The nature of the order to be passed under Section 19, includes an order restraining the respondent from dispossessing or disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household; one directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household; one restraining the respondent or his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household where the aggrieved person resides; and also an order restraining the respondent from alienating or encumbering the shared household. It also contemplates an alternate accommodation to be provided for the aggrieved person by the respondent. It could thus be seen that, what is essentially protected under Section 19 is the right of the aggrieved person to safeguard her residence in the shared household, albeit without a requirement that she should be so residing in the shared household at the time of making the application. 7. It could thus be seen that, what is essentially protected under Section 19 is the right of the aggrieved person to safeguard her residence in the shared household, albeit without a requirement that she should be so residing in the shared household at the time of making the application. 7. In tune with the requirements of Section 19, the petitioner/wife had already approached the Family Court, Ernakulam, by filing Ext.P8 M.P. (in Ext.P3 M.C.), seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the D.V. Act. It is profitable in this context to extract the reliefs sought for in Ext.P8: “A. Pass protection order under Section 18 of the Act prohibiting the act of domestic violence against the petitioner and her parents and directing the respondents to stay away from the petitioner and her parents, and restrain the respondents from preventing and obstructing the petitioner and her parents from contacting the minor children. B. Pass Residence order under Section 19 of the Act allowing the petitioner to reside in House No ARA 111 of Thaikkattukara Gram Panchayat at Ambattukavu of Choornikara Village of Aluva of Ernakulum District. C. Pass order under Section 20 of the Act allowing monetary relief directing the respondents to pay Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) towards return of money of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) received by the respondents from the father of the petitioner and return of the remuneration received by the respondents for the work done by the petitioner of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) A. Pass order under Section 20 of the Act directing the respondents to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 75,000/-(Seventy-five thousand only) to the petitioner from the date of desertion (March 2019) with arrears. B. Pass order under Section 22 of the Act directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) to the petitioner. C. Pass order under Section 21 of the Act directing the respondents to hand over custody of the minor children to the petitioner. D. Pass such orders that may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Dated this the 30th day of November 2022.” 8. It could thus be seen that exhaustive reliefs, more or less under all provisions of the D.V. Act, have been sought for in Ext.P8. D. Pass such orders that may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Dated this the 30th day of November 2022.” 8. It could thus be seen that exhaustive reliefs, more or less under all provisions of the D.V. Act, have been sought for in Ext.P8. It remains a fact that Ext.P8 has not been considered and disposed of by the Family Court, Ernakulam, and that the same is still pending consideration. 9. It is while so, that the petitioner/wife filed Ext.P10 petition (M.P.No.1052/2022), again, seeking a residence order, a relief which was very much sought for in Ext.P8, the solitary difference being only in the cause of action for seeking such a relief. The cause espoused is that the two children of the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband, were in the custody of the father of the respondent, who passed away. The respondent/husband is working in Canada and after the death of his father, there is nobody to take care of and protect the children, was the contention urged. The petitioner/wife also contended in Ext.P10 that she is living with her aged parents, without any income, and hence not in a position to provide residence and maintenance to her minor children. It was on such premise that the petitioner sought for a residence order to reside along with the children at the shared household, where the children are residing. To Ext.P10, Ext.P11 objection was filed by the respondent/husband, inter alia, contending that pursuant to the death of his father, his mother is taking care of the children in the most appropriate manner. It was also contended that the petitioner can live with the children, provided the children are willing, in the house of the petitioner. In paragraph no.8 of the objection, it was pointed out that the petitioner/wife is the only child of her parents, entitled to a two storied house at Chendamangalam, Ernakulam, besides having an apartment at Goa, and 1.89 acres of land in a prime location at Muvattupuzha. The respondent/husband also highlighted that the petitioner is an Engineer in Information Technology and that she is profitably employed. 10 . It is in the above backdrop of the facts and circumstances that the prayer sought for in Ext.P10 has to be considered and adjudged. The respondent/husband also highlighted that the petitioner is an Engineer in Information Technology and that she is profitably employed. 10 . It is in the above backdrop of the facts and circumstances that the prayer sought for in Ext.P10 has to be considered and adjudged. It is axiomatic from the above- referred facts that the petitioner is not seeking a residence order for the sake of herself, but only in the context of the allegations that there is nobody to take care of the children at her husband's residence. It remains an admitted fact that several legal proceedings are pending by and between the petitioner and the respondent, including one for getting the custody of the children. In such circumstances, the contention of the respondent/husband that the petitioner is seeking a circuitous way of securing the custody of the children cannot be thrown overboard, as completely irrelevant. 11. This Court notice that the basic claim of the petitioner, in terms of Section 19, is pending consideration before the Family Court, Ernakulam, in Ext.P8 Miscellaneous Petition. Ext.P9 objection has already been filed in that. The question as to the entitlement of the petitioner's residence in the shared household is at large and pending consideration in the proceeding. While so, a further petition for residence order, when the issue is at large in Ext.P8, that too for a reason not strictly concerning the petitioner/wife, but for the sake of the alleged interest of the children, does not appear to be proper in the fitness of things, especially when it has been prima facie made out that the children are in the care and custody of the mother of the respondent/husband. 12. This Court notice that Ext.P10 has the trappings of dual purpose being served. The first is to secure a residence in the shared household; the second is to reside with the children, thus obtaining their custody. In respect of both these purposes, separate proceedings are pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. 13 . In the above-referred state of affairs, this Court does not find any serious illegality or infirmity in Ext.P12 Order, declining the relief sought for in Ext.P10, though, the apparent reason stated in Ext.P12 is in the teeth of the law laid down in Prabha Tyagi (supra). No case is made out for interference under Article 227 of the constitution. In the above-referred state of affairs, this Court does not find any serious illegality or infirmity in Ext.P12 Order, declining the relief sought for in Ext.P10, though, the apparent reason stated in Ext.P12 is in the teeth of the law laid down in Prabha Tyagi (supra). No case is made out for interference under Article 227 of the constitution. This Original Petition (Criminal) thus fails, and the same will stand dismissed.