ORDER:

Heard Sri M. Rathan Singh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri V. Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri Nakka Naveen, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner/wife seeking indulgence of the court to interfere with the order passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda (for short ‘the Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2024 dated 21.02.2025 and to direct disposal of DVC No.31 of 2009 by fixing time limit and to order respondent Nos.3 to 6 not to evict the revision petitioner from the shared household in Plot No.63, Seshadri Nagar, RL Nagar, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

3. The petitioner herein is the wife of Khadeer Basha being married to him in the year 1991. Out of wedlock, the petitioner had a daughter and son and thereafter, due to said Khadeer Basha having illegal intimacy with another woman and resorting to harassment, the petitioner filed DVC No.31 of 2009. In said DVC, the respondents who are husband and in-laws of the petitioner have appeared, filed counter, cross-examined the petitioner herein who was examined as PW1 but did not lead evidence. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the petitioner herein, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri (for short “the Trial Court”) passed an order in favour of the petitioner granting protection from domestic violence, allotting portion in the shared household, monthly allowance of Rs.5,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the domestic violence subjected. Said order in the DVC was challenged by filing Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2024 along with condone delay petition. The condone delay petition was dismissed leading to filing of Criminal Revision Case before this court vide Crl.R.C.No.437 of 2013 and the same was allowed on 20.01.2023 condoning delay of 366 days in filing the appeal. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Case No.437 of 2013, the Criminal Appeal was numbered and disposed of by the Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 21.02.2025. The Appellate Court observed that when the DVC was filed, the respondents herein though made appearance and filed counter and also cross examined the petitioner (PW1) herein, did not lead evidence to show that the shared household was exclusive property of respondent No.2. A petition in Crl.M.P.No.2272 of 2024 along with Criminal Appeal was filed to receive additional documents and said additional documents were received for the purpose of marking documents on behalf of respondents. The matter i.e. the Crl.A.No.12 of 2024 was allowed setting aside the order passed by the Trial court in DVC No.31 of 2009 dated 05.08.2010 for fresh disposal by receiving the documents and by permitting both the parties to adduce evidence on their behalf.

4. On account of allowing the appeal, the order passed by the Trial Court with respect to allotment of a portion in the shared household also is set aside, leading to the circumstances for filing present CRP. After the Crl.A.No.12 of 2024 was allowed on 21.02.2025, the respondents herein taking advantage of setting aside of order in the DVC have demolished portion of the shared household with a JCB and in that regard, FIR is filed. In order to protect the interest of the revision petitioner during fresh disposal of the DVC, the present petition is filed seeking indulgence of the court to fix a time frame for disposal of DVC and to protect the possession/residential rights of the petitioner in the shared household till disposal of the DVC. In that context, the petitioner's counsel pleaded that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged 56 years and that she is subjected to harassment by the respondents with constant threats of dispossession from the shared household. To demonstrate the same, photographs along with a copy