THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1616 of 2010 (Dated : 26-11-2010) Between: K.Usha Rani ….Petitioner A n d State of A.P rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1616 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 10.8.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.738 of 2010 in Crl.M.P.No.552 of 2010 in DVC No.173 of 2010 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner is the wife of the 2nd respondent. Proceedings under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) have been initiated before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the proceeding on file as D.V.C.No.173 of 2010. The wife filed Crl.M.P.No.552 of 2010 under Sections 18, 19 and 21 of the Act for interim protection. The learned Magistrate allowed the application by order dated 15.6.2010. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “ Perused the contents of the affidavit filed U/s 23(2) of the Act, DIR, and other material placed on the record. I feel there is prima facie case in favour of the petitioner to pass ex parte interim orders U/s 18, 19 and 21 of the Act. Because, the petitioner does’t know the particular reason why she was thrown out from the shared household and separated from her children and she didn’t understand the attitude of R1 since the date of marriage and she never cared about this petitioner and assisted this petitioner even she is also a employee. However, the petitioner want to reside along with the children and the R1. So, by taking into consideration of the helpless condition I am of considerable view to provide protection order U/s 18 on interim basis to restrict R1 from not committing the Domestic Violence since there is every possibility of the committing the domestic violence against this petitioner. And ex parte residential order is passed to provide shelter to this needless petitioner.” 3. The 2nd respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.738 of 2010 under Section 25 of the Act for modification of the order dated 15.6.2010. The learned Magistrate, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, and on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to modify the protection order. The relevant portion of the modified order reads as hereunder:- “ Since the two minor children are so happy in the fold of the petitioner and they are comfortable in the nursing of their father (petitioner). Hence, upon such consideration I am satisfied that, it is necessary to alter the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.552/2010 under changed circumstances here the changed circumstances that, the two children are not feeling comfortable with the presence of the respondent in the shared household. They said they are going to school at 7 P.M and coming home at 10.30 PM to avoid the shadow of the respondent and it resulting in their studies. Hence, the circumstances warrants to alter the earlier interim orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.552/2010 in which the respondent is directed to reside separately and stay away from the shared household upon which she is entitled to receive the rent of Rs.1000/- from the petitioner towards alternate accommodation U/s 19(1)(f) payable on 5th of every succeeding month and the interim custody of children Anirudh and Anurag which is granted U/s 21 of the Act to the respondent is hereby ineffective and stand vacated. Respondent has no right to hold the interim custody of the said two children hereafter and she should not interfere with the life of the two children and disturb their studies and visit their school to create nuisance.” 4. The said order is assailed in this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is very much interested in taking care of the children and therefore, the original order passed by the Magistrate is to be restored. 7. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the wishes of the two minor children have been gathered by the trial Court before modifying the original order and therefore, the modified order does not warrant interference by this court in exercise of powers under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 8. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The learned Magistrate gathered the wishes of the two minor children before modifying the order. Since the modified order came to be passed after gathering the wishes of the children, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. However, an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards the residence to the petitioner is required to be enhanced and accordingly, the same is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 26-11-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1616 of 2010 DATED : 26-11-2010