IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5758 of 2010 Between: Pukkalla Appanna and 2 others .. Petitioners AND Pukkala Padmavathi and 3 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The Criminal Petition is directed against further proceedings in DVC.No.8 of 2010 on the ﬁle of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioners herein impleaded as respondents 2 to 4 therein. The Domestic Violence Case at the instance of respondents 1 to 3 herein against the petitioners herein and the husband of the 1st respondent herein alleged that since the marriage between the 1st respondent herein and the son of the 1st petitioner herein on 10-05-2003, the marital life was happy till the husband started living with the 3rd petitioner herein after the death of her husband in 2006. The petitioners in the Domestic Violence Case alleged interference with the marital life by the 3rd petitioner herein throughout, while general allegations were made against all the respondents joining together in incidents of domestic violence including an attempt to kill in November 2006. The respondents 1 to 3 with the 1st respondent representing the minor respondents 2 and 3 in the Domestic Violence Case sought for reliefs of compensation for subjecting her to acts of domestic violence, marriage expenses, maintenance, house rent and other appropriate reliefs. Insofar as the house rent, maintenance and marriage expenses are concerned, there cannot be any doubt that the husband alone has to answer such claims, while in respect of the compensation claimed by respondents 1 to 3, if all the respondents to the Domestic Violence Case are guilty of any such conduct as would bring them within the purview of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, they may be liable to answer the claim for the compensation. However, the contents of Domestic Violence Case do not show any speciﬁc clear allegations of such acts of domestic violence against the father or the brother, who are petitioners 1 and 2 herein, and even in Crime No.1657 of 2007 registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against respondents 1 and 4, no allegations appeared to have been made concerning involvement of the petitioners 1 and 2 herein. The report given by the 1st respondent herein to the police, which led to the registration of crime, was only against the respondents 1 and 4 to the Domestic Violence Case and under such circumstances, the maintainability of the Domestic Violence Case against the father-in-law and brother-in- law appears to be doubtful. It is for that reason the petitioners 1 to 3 ﬁled this criminal petition to quash the further proceedings against them claiming that they have nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the 1st respondent with her husband and the allegations of illicit intimacy with the 3rd petitioner herein are false. The 2nd petitioner is stated to be married and to be living on his own, while the 1st petitioner was not alleged even by the 1st respondent to have committed any overt acts against the 1st respondent. Smt. N (P) Anjanadevi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Neela Raju, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 are heard and they reiterated their respective contentions. The point for consideration is whether continuance of the Domestic Violence Case against the petitioners is to be interfered with in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court? As already stated, the contents of the Domestic Violence Case do not refer to any positive acts of commission or omission of domestic violence by the petitioners 1 and 2 with the sole emphasis being against the 3rd petitioner herein and the husband of the 1st respondent alleging illicit intimacy between them to be the cause for the marital discord. The various instances stated in the domestic violence case have their origin only in that alleged illicit relationship and even the report of the 1st respondent leading to the registration of Crime No.380 of 2007 of Visakhapatnam II Town Police Station is only against respondents 1 and 4 to the Domestic Violence Case. The claims of the 2nd petitioner that he is living separately with his family are not in dispute, and therefore, the continuance of further proceedings against the petitioners 1 and 2, who in any view, cannot be subjected to the other reliefs claimed in the Domestic Violence Case will be a travesty of justice as they can never be made liable for payment of any compensation in the absence of any allegations of commission of acts of any domestic violence by them at any point of time during the matrimonial life of the 1st respondent. Insofar as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against her about her relationship with the husband of the 1st respondent cannot be a matter of enquiry in this summary proceedings and the fact ﬁnding job is with that of the trial Court and not this Court in exercise of inherent power of this Court. Any expression of opinion in these proceedings without an opportunity to the parties to place their oral and documentary evidence on record will be a denial of justice to the respondents 1 to 3 herein and therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case against respondents 1 and 4 to the Domestic Violence Case, the Criminal Petition has to fail insofar as the 3rd petitioner is concerned. However, Smt. N (P) Anjanadevi, learned counsel for the petitioners, requested for permission to dispense with the physical presence of the 3rd petitioner herein on all future dates of hearing in view of the fact that she is a house wife and is in her middle age. If she is so advised and so desires, she can make an appropriate application before the trial Court for dispensing with her physical presence on all future dates of hearing except when her physical presence is indispensable for further progress of the case. In the event of such a request being made, the trial Court shall positively consider the same. Subject to the above direction, the Criminal Petition is allowed in respect of petitioners 1 and 2 and the further proceedings in DVC.No.8 of 2010 on the ﬁle of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, against them are quashed and the Criminal Petition is dismissed insofar as the 3rd petitioner is concerned. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16-11-2011 Ksn