THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3174 of 2011 Date: 15.04.2011 Between: G.Anil Kumar …..Petitioner And G.Swetha & another. …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3174 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri C.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This matter arises under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Act). It is seen that the learned IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal passed an order on 3.7.2010 in D.V.C.No.4 of 2009 on his file granting a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.5,000/- per month towards separate residence to the petitioner and directed the 1st respondent therein, i.e., her husband to pay the said amounts. The learned Magistrate has also granted a protection order against the other respondents in the above D.V.C. case. 3. It is seen that an appeal would lie against the above order of the learned Magistrate under Section 29 of the Act, but instead of filing an appeal, the husband, i.e., the petitioner herein filed a revision bearing Crl.R.P.No.25 of 2011 in the District Court, Warangal against the order of the learned Magistrate. The said Court entertained that revision and it is not known under what provision it has entertained that revision. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner herein, i.e., the husband of the 1st respondent in the D.V.C. case filed Crl.M.P.No.354 of 2011 in the above revision seeking stay of the operation of the order of the learned Magistrate passed in the D.V.C. case. While granting interim stay in that petition, the District Court directed the petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- within a week from his order and to continue to deposit the maintenance amount and permitted the wife to withdraw it. Against that interim order of the District Judge, Warangal, the present petition is filed. 5. It may be noted that the matter is now under consideration of the District Court, Warangal and the impugned order is only an interim order. After appearance and hearing of the parties, the District Court still has to pass a final order. 6. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is also requested to find out the legal position as to whether a revision lies or appeal lies against the order of the learned Magistrate and pursue that remedy before the District Court. _________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 15.04.2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3174 of 2011 DATE: 15.04.2011