The matter is coming up for admission. It is stated by Sri K.Suresh Reddy that he had lodged caveat on behalf of the respondent.

2. Sri M.Achutha Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioners had taken this Court through the order made in I.A.No.510 of 2006 in O.S.No.820 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool and also the order made in C.M.A.No.32 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge for S.C., S.T. (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool-cum- Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, and would maintain that both the courts below erred in granting temporary injunction restraining the petitioners herein, respondents in the said application from entering upon the matrimonial home. The learned counsel also had explained the relationship between the parties and would maintain that the first revision petitioner is none other than the daughter-in-law of the respondent and the counsel also would maintain that merely because the relationship is strained on that ground restrained order of this nature cannot be made. The learned counsel also would maintain that the courts below failed to take note that O.S.No.12