IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6723 of 2008 Between: M. Madhusudhana Rao and another .. Petitioners AND Mulpuri Subhadra Devi and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri K. Chaitanya, learned counsel, representing Smt. K. Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent/Public Prosecutor. The Criminal Petition is directed against DVC No.7 of 2007 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, and the petitioners are the parents-in-law of the 1st respondent-the complainant therein. The 1st respondent herein approached the Protection Officer with a complaint alleging that she was married to Umamaheswara Rao, the son of the petitioners, on 28-01-1988 at which time cash, gold jewellery and household articles were given as dowry. She claimed to have given birth to her son Vijaya Krishna on 17-11-1988 and to be subjected to harassment by the drunkard husband since inception. The parents-in-law were also alleged to be blowing second fiddle to the husband and the parents-in-law and the husband were claimed to have compelled her to undergo abortion in 1995. They were also claimed to be demanding additional dowry and to be threatening and physically and mentally harassing the 1st respondent herein. The petition for divorce filed by the husband before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, was claimed to have been dismissed and in M.C.No.6 of 2001, IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur was claimed to have ordered payment of maintenance by the husband, but she complained that since four months prior to the complaint the husband and the parents-in-law were forcing her to vacate the house, threatening to kill her and her son and her parents, if she does not vacate the house. She, therefore, claims that protection may be afforded against such harassment and the property to which her son is entitled under law may also be ensured to be given to him. She further requested for return of the cash and jewellery given as dowry at the time of her marriage. She claimed a number of properties to be joint properties of her husband. The relief claimed in the DVC was firstly, to pass a residence order and secondly to grant a monetary relief and thirdly to grant compensation or damages and prohibiting alienation of assets by the respondents was also sought for. The point for consideration is whether on the facts available as per the material on record, the DVC is sustainable against the parents-in-law of the 1st respondent? The complaint of the 1st respondent herein was primarily actuated by the possibility of her being necked out from the House No.4-8-26/2 by the husband as stated in Form-III and the prescribed proforma does not allege the parents-in-law to be directly involved in such attempts and they are claimed to be only of assistance to the husband in such attempts. The petitioners gave the address of the 1st respondent as residing in the house in which she is claiming to be residing. Insofar as the reliefs claimed in the DVC are concerned, the 1st respondent could have sought for the monetary relief or the compensation only against the husband. Any prohibition of any alienation of any assets by the respondents could have been against the husband and not against any separate properties of the father-in-law or mother-in-law. Insofar as the nature of the ownership of the house in which the 1st respondent is residing is concerned, it will be a matter for enquiry by the trial Court into the same to consider whether it can be construed as shared household and whether the 1st respondent residing therein has to be protected under the provisions of the statute by passing the requisite residence order. Even if the parents-in-law are not parties to the DVC, the 1st respondent shown to be residing in the house by the parents-in-law in this criminal petition cannot be disturbed from her possession during the pendency of the DVC subject to the determination of her right to seek residence order ultimately in the DVC. Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the parents-in-law concerning the events that happened since the marriage up-to-date, the reliefs sought for in the DVC thus do not concern them. The parents-in-law claimed to be aged 74 years and 66 years by the time of the petition in 2008 need not be subjected to the trouble of contesting a DVC when none of the reliefs concerned them and when any protection of the right to residence of the 1st respondent in the address given in the criminal petition can be directed even in their absence and in the presence of the husband alone. Sri K. Chaitanya, learned counsel referred to the decision reported in S.R. Batra and another v. Taruna Batra[1] about the interpretation of what a shared household means by the Apex Court and the Apex Court made it clear that the wife is only entitled to claim to a right to reside in a shared household, which would mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The applicability of the principle to the facts of the case will be a subject of enquiry by the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to determine whether the residence claimed by the 1st respondent belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member or exclusively belonged to the 1st petitioner alone as claimed by them and no expression of opinion need be made on the same at this juncture. Subject to such determination, the further proceedings against the parents-in-law in the DVC are is to be quashed as their presence in the case is unnecessary and superfluous. Therefore, the further proceedings in DVC.No.7 of 2007 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur, against the petitioners herein are quashed and the said quashing of further proceedings against them in the DVC is without prejudice to the right of the 1st respondent herein to claim a right to reside in the address given in this criminal petition itself subject to determination of her right to such residence on merits in accordance with law in the DVC by the trial Court after enquiry. The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28-09-2011 Ksn [1] (2007) 3 SCC 169