Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: - In this petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 12.06.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide which order dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak was set aside.

2. Marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with late Satish Kumar Balyan son of Sh. Om Parkash Balyan-respondent No.1 on 14.01.2000. One daughter Lokansha took birth from their wedlock on 26.02.2004. Husband of the petitioner died on 06.06.2009. Petitioner alleged that she along with her minor daughter lived with respondent No.1 in House No.28-A/22 Luxmi Nagar, Rohtak till 20.02.2010.

3. The petitioner filed complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondent-Om Parkash Balyan and one Ram Kumar Nara alleging that petitioner and her minor daughter have been thrown out of the house.

4. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rohtak passed an order dated 25.02.2014 as an interim relief that at this stage plea of respondents that house is not shared house cannot be entertained for want of prima facie proof to that effect and granted interim residential order to allow petitioner/complainant to reside in the house as shared household. The respondents were further restrained from alienating the share of the complainant, however the Magistrate did not agree to restrain the respondents from alienating the house situated at village Boria, District Jhajjar and one plot measuring 3000 sq. yards at Badli Road, Jhajjar for want of documents.

5. Respondents went in revision before Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak who vide judgment dated 12.06.2014 accepted the revision petition, thereby setting aside the order dated 25.02.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak granting interim residence order in favour of petitioner.

6. Facts as emerged on record are that petitioner’s husband was found murdered in his car on 07.06.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order passed by Magistrate was an interlocutory order and revision against the same was not maintainable before Additional Sessions Judge.

7. Learned counsel for respondents argued that under Section 29 of the Act an appeal is maintainable only against final order and revision is maintainable against the interim relief which can be revised by the Court of Sessions. Learned counsel placed reliance upon S. Srikanth v. Divyalaxmi, 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 35, Sheetal v. Hitesh, 2012(3) RCR (Criminal) 706 and Asifa Khatoon v. Rubina and another, 2010(6) RCR (Criminal) 2032.

8. Under Section 17(1) of the Act, right to residence in a shared household can only be appreciated if the house belong to or taken on rent by husband or the house belong to joint family to which husband is a member. Shared household cannot mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past, the same would become shared household. There cannot be any legal obligation on the part of parents of the husband to maintain the wife of deceased son particularly in view of the fact that disrespect or disregard to them has become source of nuisance. The bonding can be on the basis of mutual relationship of love and affection but in any case parents of the husband cannot be forced to maintain daughterin- law from their self-acquired property. The wife has only right to maintenance against her husband or sons/daughters or from the ancestral share of her husband in the property but certainly she cannot thrust herself against the wishes of parents of her husband nor she can claim against the wishes of the parents of her husband.

9. According to photocopy of sale deed No.953 dated 27.10.1989, plot No.28-A/22 in Luxmi Nagar, Rohtak was purchased by respondent No.1 for a lawful consideration from its vendors. Therefore, house in question is self-acquired property of respondent No.1.

10. The petitioner along with Satish Kumar Balyan (husband) we