HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5268 of 2009 O R D E R: The Petitioners 1 to 5 are the Respondents in DVC No. 2 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Podili filed by the Protection Officer on behalf of the 2nd respondent/aggrieved party. The 1st petitioner is husband of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd petitioner is brother, the 3rd petitioner is sister-in-law, the 4th petitioner is sister and the 5th petitioner is mother of the 1st petitioner. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there was divorce between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent filed the case in the lower court subsequent to the divorce. The petitioners filed copy of divorce notice said to have been issued by the 1st petitioner to the 2nd respondent. The petitioners’ counsel stated that he can produce Divorce Certificate issued by the concerned authorities. Copy of paper publication regarding Talaq is also filed. It is stated that two demand drafts were sent by the 1st petitioner to the 2nd respondent regarding value of Jahej articles and maintenance during Iddat period. The case was instituted by the Protection Officer by filing Form Nos. I & II in the lower court. The forms did not contain any allegation regarding the plea of divorce putforth by the petitioners herein. Therefore, it would be a question of fact to be decided by the lower court, in case the plea is raised before that court by the petitioners in their counter in the Domestic Violance Case, whether there was in fact divorce and whether the said divorce is in accordance with law. This court in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go into the said question and decide the same. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent is not entitled for reliefs against the petitioners 2 to 5 and at best she can claim relief under Domestic Violance Case against the 1st petitioner. It is further contended that even as against the 1st petitioner, the claim is not valid subsequent to factum of divorce. In the Domestic Violance Case, the Protection Officer claimed reliefs under various provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violance Act, 2005 (in short ‘the Act’). No doubt, reliefs of maintenance under Section 20 of the Act and residence under Section 19 of the Act can be claimed only as against the husband and not other relations of the husband. But, in so far as reliefs of protection under Section 18 and compensation under Section 22 of the Act can be claimed not only against the husband but also against other relations of the husband in case it is proved that the aggrieved party has a threat from other relatives and in case it is proved that she was harassed by the relations also. Therefore, this court in this petition cannot quash the proceedings in Domestic Violance Case. 4. It is contended that the petitioners 2 to 5 are residents of Podili whereas the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondents lived together at Ongole and that there is no possibility of the petitioners 2 to 5 going to Ongole and harassing the 2nd respondent daily. In the Domestic Violace case, residence of the 1st petitioner is shown as Podili only. It would be a question of fact whether the 1st petitioner is a resident of Podili or Ongole and the said fact has to be decided by the Magistrate where the case is pending. In the circumstances, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, the lower court is directed to dispense with presence of the petitioners 2 to 5 who are the respondents 2 to 5 in DVC No. 2 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Podili, during enquiry of the case except on the date of pronouncement of order therein. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 29-10-2010 Mjl/*