THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.41 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri Komireddy Karam Chand, counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Kiranmayi, counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2 This Criminal Revision is preferred against the order, dated 03.01.2011 passed in D.V.C. Appeal No.428 of 2010 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (Appellate Court), by which it has set aside the order dated 20.11.2010 of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.1302 of 2010 granting the relief of protection for the third floor of the house in question treating it as a shared household and remanded the matter. 3 In the D.V.C.Appeal, the appellate Court held that the lady, Anjana Taggarse Motupalli i.e. the first petitioner herein never claimed the third floor as a shared household and in that view of the matter it has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and remitted the matter back to the learned Magistrate to decide the application of the petitioners herein afresh having regard to the pleadings. Questioning the order, the petitioners have come up with this revision. 4. Heard both counsel at length. 5. It is seen from the pleadings in the DVC filed before the learned Magistrate that the first petitioner has claimed shared household only in the second floor but she claimed the third floor as her place of employment on the plea that she is an advocate and she has set up her office in that third floor. 6. It is true that Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act provides for protection for place of employment also and at the same time Section 19 provides for protection for the shared household. The plea of the first respondent is that the first petitioner being his daughter-in- law wants to occupy the entire house to the exclusion of the first respondent and his family members. Of-course, this is a matter to be considered by the learned Magistrate. 7. Ms.Kiranmayi across the bar fairly stated that the first respondent is not interfering with the shared household of the first petitioner in the second floor of the house and his grievance is that the first petitioner has never set up her office in the third floor and he is using that floor as the owner of the building for his business as he is Chairman of a public limited company. Another question raised is whether a lady can claim place of employment also in a residential building in which she claims a shared household for setting up her office as a professional. These questions are also to be decided by the learned Magistrate. The statement of Ms.Kiranmayi that the first respondent is not interfering with the shared household of the first petitioner and her children in the second floor of the house is recorded. 8. It may be noted that a perusal of the impugned order shows that it does not suffer from any infirmity and accordingly, recording the above undertaking given by Ms.Kiranmayi, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. If any interlocutory applications are filed by the parties before the learned Magistrate, the same should be disposed of at the earliest before the main application is taken up or along with the main application as the nature of the controversy permits. ____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 12th JANUARY, 2011. KVNI/CVRK