HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.NO.919 OF 2009 Dt.31.12.2010 Between: N.Srinivas and others ..Petitioners And N.Lalitha and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.NO.919 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Smt.K.Madhavi, learned counsel for the petitioners. This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.12 of 2008 instituted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the D.V.C. and they are wife and minor daughter of the 1st petitioner herein. A perusal of the copy of the D.V.C petition filed by the petitioners counsel would show that in the said D.V.C respondents 1 and 2 claimed monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- for each of them and they further claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for pain and harassment meted out to them. These are the two reliefs which are specifically claimed in the D.V.C The contention of Smt.K.Madhavi is that so far as maintenance is concerned, the husband alone is liable, but not the other petitioners herein. Her further contention is even with regard to the compensation petitioners 2 to 4 cannot be made liable as they are said to be living away from the 1st petitioner. These contentions, however, have to be looked into in the D.V.C. wherein the allegations show that all the petitioners harassed respondents 1 and 2. These are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in this criminal petition. Going by the averments in the D.V.C., it cannot be said that it is totally baseless one, which warrants interference, by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It may, however, be noted that so far as maintenance and compensation are concerned, it is only the 1st petitioner being husband who would be prima facie liable to pay them in case respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to the same and the court below would be competent to proceed against him and pass an ex parte order also. In these circumstances, if any application is filed by respondents 1 and 2 for interim relief with regard to the above two main reliefs claimed in the D.V.C against other petitioners also, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall proceed and decide the same as against petitioners 2 to 4 herein only after giving sufficient notice and opportunity to them. With these observations, this criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J. 31.12.2010 kpr