THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1146 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st respondent is the wife and the 2nd respondent is the daughter of the petitioner. The respondents filed F.C.O.P.No.616 of 2007 before the Family Court, Hyderabad, under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. They claimed not only individual maintenance against the petitioner, but also their right to reside in the premises mentioned in the petition schedule. The respondents have also filed I.A.No.605 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., with a prayer to restrain the petitioner herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. Through its order, dated 22.12.2007, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the scope of the O.P., filed by the respondents, is somewhat limited, and in the usual course, it must be confined to the claim for maintenance. The respondents, however, pleaded that the petitioner is interfering with their residence and occupation in the premises. It may be true that the petitioner is shown as owner of the property. At the same time, he cannot prevent the respondents from residing in the house, as long as the marriage between himself and the 1st respondent subsists. Further, being the daughter of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has every right to reside in the premises. The petitioner states that under the guise of the order of injunction, respondents are preventing him from entering into the premises. In this context, it is clarified that, since the petitioner happens to be the recorded owner of the property, he cannot be prevented from entering the house, in such a way as not to interfere with the residence and living of the respondents. Hence, the C.R.P. is disposed of, modifying the order under revision to the effect that the petitioner shall also be entitled to reside in the premises in question, in such a way as not to cause any inconvenience or hardship to the respondents. The learned Family Judge shall endeavour to dispose of the O.P., as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:22.06.2010 GJ