ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 03.01.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.19 of 2023 by the learned Judge, I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad.

The brief facts of the case are that the case arises out of a petition filed by the petitioner No.3, who married late M. Maheshwar in 2005 and resided with him in the shared household at Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, where they were blessed with two children; she alleged that after her husband’s death on 29.07.2018, her in-laws subjected her to harassment, denied her residence, and, with a view to deprive her of rights, executed a gift settlement deed in favour of the 3rd respondent and initiated civil proceedings against her, forcing her and her minor children to live in the veranda without proper shelter, while the respondents denied her marital status, residence, and claimed exclusive ownership of the property; the trial Court, on prima facie consideration, granted residence orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act directing provision of accommodation and restraining dispossession, and aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred the appeal contending lack of proof of domestic violence and residence, but the appellate Court, noting the petitioner’s consistent address in records, the suspicious timing of the settlement deed, and non-compliance of interim directions by the respondents, held that the trial Court’s order suffered from no infirmity and accordingly dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the trial Court.

Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri B. Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State and Sri V. Venkata Subramanyam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners the impugned order of the appellate Court is contrary to law and evidence, passed without proper appreciation of material on record and without assigning cogent reasons and that the respondent No.2 never resided in the alleged shared household and the documentary evidence such as passport, ration card and other records clearly show a different residence, thereby negating her claim. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations or proof of domestic violence, which is a sine qua non for granting relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. He contended that the property is the self- acquired property of late Muda Narsimha, who executed a valid gift settlement deed in favour of appellant No.3, and therefore, the respondent cannot claim any right of residence. He further contended that the respondent is indulging in forum shopping by pursuing multiple proceedings and filing false criminal cases to harass the appellants and to grab the property and that the appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making observations on the validity of the gift deed and misinterpreted earlier interim orders regarding payment of rent, and failed to consider the rights of the appellants, including senior citizens, while granting order of the trial Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the appellate Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of late Maheshwar and had been residing in the shared household after marriage, which is evident from various documents including Aadhaar, FIR and other records. He further submitted that after the death of her husband, the appellants, with a mala fide intention to deprive her of her lawful rights, executed a gift settlement deed and attempted to dispossess her, forcing her and her minor children to live in the