IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3757 of 2008 Between: Mekala Pullarao & 2 others .. Petitioners AND The State & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3757 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor. None entered appearance for the second respondent though served with notice of the petition. 2. The second respondent herein filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’), before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for various reliefs including a protection order against committing any acts of domestic violence, providing shelter to the second respondent and her husband, providing proper food and clothes and medical expenses to the second respondent and her husband, return of all her gold ornaments, financial support to the second respondent and maintenance of her husband, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the harassment and a direction to the first respondent not to alienate the house property and costs. 3. The second respondent alleged that after the marriage of the second respondent with Mekala Srinivasa Rao on 27.11.2005 after giving articles worth more than Rs.3,00,000/-, 10 tolas of gold ornaments and Rs.12,000/- as Adapadachu Katnam, the parents-in-law and sister-in-law, who were the petitioners herein, were alleged to have concealed the mental illness of the husband and they were administering some medicines without disclosing it to the second respondent. The second respondent claimed that except a fixed deposit amount of Rs.1,49,900/- given by the brother of the second respondent, she and her husband had no source of livelihood and the petitioners herein were alleged to have started beating the second respondent herein to get additional dowry naming the second respondent’s husband as insane. The sister-in-law/the third petitioner herein was stated to be always staying with the parents and the second respondent herein narrated various incidents in the petition which ultimately led to a complaint to the police on 18.09.2007, which was registered as Crime No.848 of 2007. O.S.No.2290 of 2007, on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge’s Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was claimed to have been filed by the first petitioner herein for permanent injunction against the second respondent herein, her husband and her brothers in which ex parte orders were obtained. Because the petitioners herein were alleged to be the cause for the mental illness of the second respondent’s husband and for the harassment of the second respondent, she claimed to have filed the petition. 4. The domestic violence case is pending in D.V.C.No.6 of 2008 before the trial Court and the petitioners herein contend that the reliefs sought for do not disclose any offence committed against the second respondent and as the definition of the ‘respondent’ does not include a female person, the complaint is not maintainable against petitioners 2 and 3 herein. The petitioners also claimed that reliefs 2 to 8 could not have been claimed against the parents-in-law and sister-in-law and the first and second petitioners are claimed to be aged about 78 and 70 years respectively, suffering with chronic diseases and the first petitioner is claimed to have undergone even a by-pass surgery. The petitioners also alleged that the second respondent and her men even attempted to kill the first petitioner resulting in a report to the police and a complaint before the competent Court which was referred to the police. The first petitioner was also compelled to file O.S.No.2290 of 2007 and, hence, they desire that the proceedings before the trial Court be quashed. 5. The point for consideration is whether the petition in D.V.C.No.6 of 2008 is not ex facie maintainable under the Act and is liable to be quashed. 6. In the enquiry into this criminal petition, the scope of which is very restricted and limited, the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by either party cannot be the subject of a deep enquiry and there cannot be any fact finding adjudication in this petition. The relationship of the parties being not in dispute, the second respondent, if her allegations are true, may be entitled to claim appropriate reliefs under the statute, if she is entitled to the same on facts. 7. Though the definition of the word ‘respondent’ under Section 2 (q) of the Act does not appear to include a female, the Apex Court and this Court made it clear that in view of the definition of the word ‘relative’ which was not confined to males only, the Legislature can never be considered to have intended to exclude female relatives of a husband from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Act. While expressing no final opinion on the maintainability of the domestic violence case against petitioners 2 and 3 herein on facts, the case is not ex facie liable to be quashed on the ground of sex of petitioners 2 and 3. 8. It is true that insofar as the direction to the first petitioner not to alienate the house standing in his name is concerned, the same may not appear to be within the scope of the reliefs that can be sought for under Sections 18 to 22 of the statute, but without segregating the same from the other reliefs claimed, the same can be left for determination by the trial Court on merits. The request for protection against the domestic violence and other reliefs claimed cannot straight away be considered to be outside the scope of the relevant provisions of the statute and the reliefs claimed are not such as are prima facie illegal so as to nip in the bud. The serious allegations made by the second respondent need to be enquired into on merits, but the age and state of health of the first and second petitioners were alleged to be such, as would require some respite for them, even during the pendency of the proceedings. The trial Court will necessarily consider, in the interests of justice, any appropriate request being made by them for dispensing with their presence during the proceedings with permission to be represented by their counsel during the hearing except when their personal attendance is indispensable. The trial Court can also be requested to expedite the enquiry into the matter so as to avoid harassment to both parties and with such direction to the trial Court, the petition has to fail. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed without any expression of opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners herein which are to be determined in accordance with law after every reasonable opportunity is given to both parties in the enquiry into the domestic violence case and the trial Court shall positively consider dispensing with the presence of petitioners 1 and 2 during the hearing except when their presence is indispensable if an appropriate request on their behalf is made by them to the Court. The trial Court would also make every endeavour to dispose of the domestic violence case on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of communication of this order. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th September, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3757 of 2008 Date: 28th September, 2011 KL