THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No.977 of 2011 27th April, 2011 Between :- M.Jairaj .. Petitioner And The State rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No.977 of 2011 ORDER:- This revision has been directed against the issuance of the warrant to the Advocate-Commissioner in DVC.No.3 of 2007 on 8-2- 2011. The respondent herein initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranager, took the complaint on file as D.V.C.No.3 of 2007. The petitioner herein entered appearance and resisted the relief sought for by the wife. The learned Magistrate ordered protection to the wife. The relevant portion of the order dated 3-12-2008 passed in DVC.No.3/2007 reads as hereunder:- “In the result, the petitioner is entitled to live in 2 rooms out of 4 rooms in the Schedule Property as shared Schedule house with the respondent and the respondent is restrained from alienating, gifting or creating any charge whatsoever concerned over the suit schedule property, commit any act of Domestic Violence as per U/sec.3 of the said Act, maintenance of Rs.500/- grnted by Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad, (West and South), R.R.District is enhanced Rs.1500/- per month from the date of this petition and cost of Rs.2000/- is awarded in favour of petitioner.” The petitioner-husband did not choose to challenge the said order. The respondent-wife filed Crl.M.P.No.383 of 2009 in DVC No.3/2007. The said application ended in dismissal for default. Thereafter the respondent-wife filed Crl.M.P.No.3765/2010 seeking implementation of the order passed in DVC.No.3/2007. The learned Magistrate allowed the Crl.M.P.No.3765/2010 and issued warrant to the Commissioner to deliver possession of 2 rooms to the respondent- wife. The warrant dated 8-2-2011 is assailed in this revision. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent-wife filed criminal Case against the petitioner-husband and others and the said criminal case being C.C.No.679/2005 ended in acquittal with specific observation that the prosecution failed to prove that P.W.1 therein is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein and therefore the question of the petitioner providing any accommodation to the respondent does not arise. What is questioned in this revision is the warrant issued to the Commissioner. Unless the petitioner questions the order preceding the warrant, this revision is not maintainable. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to question the order preceding the issuance of warrant dated 8-2-2011. _________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 27th April, 2011 smr