Telangana High Court
Muda Vigneshwar vs The State Of Telangana on 9 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.406 of 2024
DATE: 09.04.2026
BETWEEN:
Muda Vigneshwar and others
.....petitioners
And
The State of Telangana and others
.....Respondents
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.
2. 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. 2 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.406 of 2024 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. 3
SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.406 of 2024 Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
3. 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.
4. 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 4 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.406 of 2024 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.
5. 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 5 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.406 of 2024 the veranda without proper shelter. He contended that the timing of the gift deed and subsequent civil proceedings clearly indicate an attempt to defeat her rights and that at the stage of interlocutory relief, only prima facie satisfaction is required, and the trial Court rightly granted protection and residence orders. He further contended that the appellants failed to comply with interim directions to provide alternative accommodation, thereby justifying the orders passed, and there is no illegality or infirmity warranting interference. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the core issue revolves around the nature of relief granted to respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, particularly with regard to her right of residence in the shared household.
7. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the subject property is not a shared household, but the self- acquired property of their predecessor, and that respondent 6 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.406 of 2024 No.2 has no legal right to reside therein. It is further contended that, in view of the disputes between the parties and their strained relationship, the petitioners are willing to provide alternative accommodation to respondent No.2 and her children, instead of permitting her to reside in the said premises. The petitioners have also raised concerns regarding their status as senior citizens and the alleged disturbance to their peaceful living.
8. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has consistently asserted that she is the legally wedded wife of late Maheshwar and that she resided in the shared household after her marriage, which is supported by prima facie material placed on record. The allegations of dispossession, harassment, and execution of a gift settlement deed, immediately after the death of her husband, prima facie indicate an attempt to deprive her of her right to residence. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court, upon appreciation of the available material, have concurrently held in favour of respondent No.2 and granted protection and residence orders.
9. It is well settled that, at the stage of granting relief under the Domestic Violence Act, the Court is required to 7 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.406 of 2024 arrive at a prima facie satisfaction regarding domestic relationship, shared household, and alleged acts of domestic violence. In the present case, both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings based on material available on record, and this Court does not find any perversity or patent illegality in such findings warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
10. However, at the same time, Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act empowers the Court not only to pass residence orders in respect of a shared household but also to direct the respondent to secure alternative accommodation or to pay rent for the same, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Having regard to the admitted disputes between the parties, their strained relationship, and the submission made by the petitioners expressing willingness to provide alternative accommodation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by suitably modifying the impugned order to that extent.
11. Accordingly, while upholding the findings of the Courts below with regard to the entitlement of respondent No.2 to residence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by 8 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.406 of 2024 modifying the impugned order to the extent that, in lieu of residence in the shared household, the petitioners shall provide suitable alternative accommodation to respondent No.2 and her minor children or, in the alternative, pay reasonable monthly rent for such accommodation, as may be determined by the trial Court. The trial Court shall fix the quantum of rent, having regard to the location and status of the parties, and ensure compliance within a stipulated time.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 09.04.2026 SAI 9 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.406 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.406 of 2024 Date: 09.04.2026 SAI