JUDGMENT : 1. - The petitioners, who are father-in-law and mother in-law respectively of the non-petitioner-Dr. Vinita Choudhary, have preferred this criminal revision petition against that part of the order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Complaint Case No.13/2011 whereby an interim direction/order was made for the residence of the complainant in the house in dispute and also against the order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the appellate Court whereby the above-said order has been upheld and affirmed. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that complainant-Dr. Vinita Choudhary filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") against the petitioners and her husband-Shri Satish Bijamiya (non-petitioner No.5-herein) seeking various reliefs under the provisions of the Act including one under Section 19 to the effect that the petitioners and non-petitioner No.5 may be ordered to allow the complainant to continue to reside in the house in dispute or they may provide alternative accommodation to her or to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as rent. It is pertinent to note that in the complaint no such fact was averred by the complainant that the house in dispute is a self acquired property of her husband or he is co-owner of it alongwith the petitioners or it is an ancestral house in which her husband also has share. Reply to the complaint was filed by the petitioners, in which apart from other facts, it was averred that the complainant has no connection with the house in dispute and it is a self-acquired property of the petitioner No. 1-Shri Dan Mal and the complainant has no legal right in the same. Non-petitioner No. 5, husband of the complainant, also filed separate reply to the complainant with the averment that the house in dispute is a self-acquired property of the petitioner No. 1 and no other person including the complainant has any right in it. It was further averred that he has a separate house in his possession and control and the complainant can reside in the same. It was further averred that he has a separate house in his possession and control and the complainant can reside in the same. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties vide interim order dated 05.07.2011 made a direction to the petitioners and non-petitioner No. 5 not to interfere in the residence of the complainant in the house in dispute and also not to disconnect electric supply to it. Feeling aggrieved from this part of the order, the petitioners filed Appeal No. 35/2011 under Section 29 of the Act and the same was dismissed by the appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2011. It was found by the Court that no evidence has been produced indicating that the house in dispute has been constructed by petitioner No. 1. It was also observed that this fact can be decided finally only recording evidence of the parties. It was further held that according to Hindu Law, grandson has a right in the property of his grandfather. With these findings the order of the learned Magistrate was upheld and affirmed. Still dissatisfied, the petitioners are before this Court by way of this criminal revision petition. 3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that speck averment was made in the reply filed by the petitioners as well as in the separate reply filed by the non-petitioner No. 5 to the effect that the house in dispute is self-acquired property of the petitioner No. 1 and no other person including the complainant has right in it and this fact has remained unrebutted as it has not been denied by the complainant in any manner and even in the complaint no averment was made that the house in dispute solely belongs to non-petitioner No. 5 or he is co-owner of the same but the learned Courts below without considering the matter in a right perspective have directed the petitioners not to interfere in the possession/residence of the complainant in it. It was further submitted that there is ample documentary evidence available on record indicating that the plot over which the house in dispute was constructed was purchased by the petitioner and loan for construction and re-construction of the same was also taken by him from his employer and, therefore, no further evidence is required to be recorded. It was further submitted that there is ample documentary evidence available on record indicating that the plot over which the house in dispute was constructed was purchased by the petitioner and loan for construction and re-construction of the same was also taken by him from his employer and, therefore, no further evidence is required to be recorded. It was also submitted that it is well settled legal position that daughter-in-law has no right to claim residence right in a house which solely belongs to her father-in-law. It was further submitted that in the present case specific averment was made by non-petitioner No.5 that the complainant can reside in another house which is in the sole possession and control of him but that aspect of the matter was not even considered. It was also submitted that the complainant herself made a prayer that alternative accommodation or Rs. 5,000/- per month as rent may be provided to her but even then residence right in the house in dispute was granted. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the cases of S.R. Batra & Anr. v. Taruna Batra (Smt.) reported in 2007(3) SCC 169 and Neetu Mittal v. Kanta Mittal & Ors. reported in  AIR 2009 (Delhi) 72 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioner-complainant by supporting the impugned orders, submitted that only interim order has been passed which was upheld by the appellate Court and this Court in its limited jurisdiction of revision cannot interfere in the same. It was further submitted that whether house in dispute is self-acquired property of the petitioner or husband of the complainant also has a share in it, can be decided in the main complaint which is still pending after recording evidence of both the parties. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also the material made available on record as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra & Anr. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also the material made available on record as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra & Anr. v. Taruna Batra (Smt.) (supra) has held that the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a shared household would only mean the house belonging or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. In the case before Hon'ble Court, it was found that the house in dispute is exclusive property of the mother-in-law of the complainant and, therefore, it was held that it cannot be called a shared household and in such a house the complainant has no right to residence. 8. In the case of Neetu Mittal v. Kanta Mittal & Ors. (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that daughter-in-law cannot claim right to live in house of parents of the husband against their consult and wishes. 9. In the present case, I am of the view that sufficient material is available on record clearly indicating that the house in dispute is a self-acquired property of petitioner No.1 and the husband of the complainant has no share or right in it in the life time of the petitioner. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that no documents were produced by the petitioners before the trial Court/appellate Court in regard to the exclusive ownership of the house but clear and sufficient averments were made in the replies filed by the petitioners as well as non-petitioner No. 5 to the effect that the house in dispute is a self-acquired property of the petitioner and the same remained uncontroverted. It is pertinent to note that in the complaint filed by the complainant no such averment was made that the house in dispute exclusively belongs to non-petitioner No.5 or it is a joint family property in which he also has a share. It is further pertinent to note that the complainant herself prayed that facility of alternative accommodation or rent @ of Rs. 5,000/- per month may be provided to her. It is further pertinent to note that the complainant herself prayed that facility of alternative accommodation or rent @ of Rs. 5,000/- per month may be provided to her. Offer was also made by non-petitioner No.5 for residence of the complainant in an alternate house but both the Courts below did not consider rather ignored these material and relevant facts. I am of the considered view that grave illegality and perversity has been committed by the Courts below and even at the interim stage of the proceedings such order could not have been passed. 10. Consequently, the order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Complaint Case No.13/2011 as affirmed by appellate Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur vide order dated 16.09.2011 passed in appeal No.35/2011 to the extent by which right to residence was granted to the non-petitioner-complainant-Dr. Vinita Choudhary is set aside but at the same time it is clarified that the complainant can pray before the learned Magistrate for providing her alternative accommodation or monthly rent from her husband-non-petitioner No. 5.Order accordingly. *******