THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1600 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 23.08.2010 passed by the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2010 whereby the respondents 2 and 3 who are wife and daughter of the first petitioner herein were permitted to stay with the parents of the husband i.e. appellant in the said Criminal Appeal and first petitioner herein. 2 First petitioner herein is husband and respondents 2 and 3 herein are his wife and daughter respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as husband, wife and daughter. 3 Brief facts that led to the filing of the present revision are as under: Second respondent is the legally wedded wife of the first petitioner herein and because of various reasons she along with the third respondent approached the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad and filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2009 under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act seeking various reliefs. In the said case, she also filed two miscellaneous petitions i.e. Crl.M.P.No.848 of 2009 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month to herself and her daughter and Crl.M.P.No.2054 of 2009 for grant of residential order. The trial court having considered the said submissions of the wife and the daughter, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- to the daughter. Similarly, while allowing the Crl.M.P.No.2054 of 2009, the trial court permitted the wife and daughter to reside with her parents-in-law i.e. parents of the petitioner at Flat No.S1, Indra Prastha Apartments, West Mambalam, Chennai. As the amount of interim maintenance claimed is Rs.25,000/- to each of them and the maintenance awarded by the trial court was only Rs.4,000/- and 3,000/- both the respondents approached the lower appellate court and filed Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2009 and similarly questioning the residential order, the husband filed Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2010. In the said appeal the husband also filed a miscellaneous petition No.41 of 2010 stating that if the wife and daughter are permitted to reside with his parents, it will case any amount of inconvenience and as such he requested the lower appellate court to suspend the said order. However, the lower appellate court by its order dated 06.04.2010 directed the husband to provide an alternate accommodation to the wife and daughter pending disposal of the said Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2010. In so far as the appeal filed by the wife i.e. Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2009 is concerned, it was partly allowed and the said amount of Rs.7,000/- in total awarded to the respondents was enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to both of them put together. Questioning the said order passed in Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2010 dated 06.04.2010 the wife filed Criminal Petition No.3595 of 2010 and questioning the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2009, the husband filed Criminal Revision Case No.2124 of 2009. Those two cases were heard by a learned Judge of this court and the learned Judge by his order dated 03.08.2010 dismissed them. Thereafter, it appears, the lower appellate court went into the merits of Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2010 and dismissed the said appeal by its judgment dated 23.08.2010. The same is questioned in this revision. 4 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mahmood Ali is that in a circumstance like this, i.e. strained relationship between the husband and the wife, it is not desirable for the courts to direct the wife and her daughter to reside with the parents of the husband. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner i.e. husband is willing to provide an alternate accommodation to the wife and daughter during the pendency of the said D.V.C. 2 of 2009 pending on the file of the trial court. 5 Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the respondents stay either with the petitioner or with his parents, it would be safe for them and if they stay elsewhere it may not be in their interest. Further, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the daughter is a school going girl and if the alternate accommodation is provided at a far off place, it would be difficult for the daughter to go the school for the purpose of education. 6 Apparently, the relationship between the wife and husband is terribly strained. It is also on record that the wife had already approached the police and gave a report against the husband and her in laws on the basis of which a case in Cr.No.130 of 2009 was registered against the husband and others for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and under sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In those circumstances, in my considered view, it is not desirable to allow the respondents to stay with her parents in law and hence this court by order dated 14.09.2010 while suspending the said order passed by the lower appellate court on 23.08.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2010, directed the husband to secure an alternate accommodation to the wife and daughter as per their status, so that she can reside comfortably during the pendency of the said D.V.C.No.2 of 2009. Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioner secured an alternate accommodation i.e. Flat No.9/11, Ground Floor (Front Portion), Subrahmanya Salai, West Saidapet, Chennai-6— 015 and the rental deed executed between the petitioner and the owner of the said Flat, which is produced in the court today, establishes the fact that it is for a period of eleven months and that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards advance. As per the rental deed, the rent per month is Rs.3,800/-. Though it is objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said accommodation is not properly furnished, the petitioner undertook to furnish it properly and produced proof establishing the fact that the said flat is properly furnished. In view of the said alternate accommodation provided by the petitioner and as the petitioner has undertaken and furnished the same and also in view of the fact that the same is not far off from the school in which the daughter is studying, the same shall be continued during the pendency of the said DVC No.2 of 2009 pending before the trial court. 7 With the above observations, this revision is disposed of. However, having regard to the strained relationship between the parties and the peculiar circumstances involved in this case, the trial court is hereby directed to decide the said DVC No.2 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible. --------------- 27.09.2010 C.C. Tomorrow B/o Kvsn