ORDER 1. The instant petition under section 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the petitioners being crestfallen by order dated 8.8.2016 passed by JMFC, Morena in case No. 246/2016; whereby, as an interim protection, petitioners were directed to keep the respondent in the family household and provide her food, shelter and place as per her dignity till the decision of the case and the said order has been affirmed by the Appellate Court (Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena) vide order dated 24.3.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 2900140/2016. Therefore, petitioners are before this Court. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, trial Court as well as appellate Court erred in passing the impugned orders contrary to law. While relying upon the judgment rendered by apex Court in the case of S.R.Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra (Smt.) [ (2007) 3 SCC 169 ], it is submitted that house in question belongs to mother-in-law of respondent/complainant, therefore, right to live in said house cannot be claimed by complainant/respondent-daughter-in-law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and while relying upon the decision of apex Court in the case of Hiral P. Harsora and ors. v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and ors. [ (2016) 10 SCC 165 ], it is submitted that by the mandate of said judgment, no restrictive meaning as per section 2 (q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "Act of 2005") can be given and therefore, mother-in-law is also included. He prayed for dismissal of the petition as according to him, interim order has been passed by the trial Court and final adjudication is yet to be made. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended by respective parties in support of their claim. 5. The judgment rendered by apex Court in the case of Hiral P. Harsora (supra) is categorical in this regard. Perusal of said judgment reveals that apex Court has interpreted the expression "relative" as contained in section 2 (q) of the Act of 2005. "Domestic relationship" in section 2 (f) of the Act of 2005 and "shared household" in section 2 (s) of the Act of 2005 categorically expressed that remedies under the Act of 2005 are available even against female family members and also against even non-adult. "Domestic relationship" in section 2 (f) of the Act of 2005 and "shared household" in section 2 (s) of the Act of 2005 categorically expressed that remedies under the Act of 2005 are available even against female family members and also against even non-adult. Restrictive perpetrators of violence against women to the acts actionable under the Act of 2005 to only "adults male person" fails the test of reasonable classification. In view of said pronouncement, the ground raised by petitioners goes and therefore, petition sans merits so far as, maintainability of complaint is concerned. 6. Even otherwise, the impugned order of trial Court is an interim order and therefore, is to be tested on the anvil of submissions and evidence adduced by the parties. The trial Court after due consideration rightly passed the impugned order. No case for interference is made out, petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed. However, looking to the nature of controversy and time lapsed, trial Court is directed to expedite the matter and decide the case as expeditious as possible, preferably within six months. 7. Petition stands dismissed. R.K. Soni for petitioners; Anand Bhardwaj for respondent.