THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10146 OF 2010 ORDER: The Criminal Petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2010, on the ﬁle of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Cyberabad, Hyderabad against the petitioners. 2. The report of the second respondent herein to the Protection Oﬃcer on 30.01.2010, led to initiation of the Domestic Violence Case. The second respondent alleged her marriage on 07.05.2006, to have compelled to resign her job to shift to Hyderabad. She stated in detail about the drinking habits of her husband’s family to her discomfort and the harassment by the husband in various ways. She also alleged the ﬁrst petitioner herein to be pressurizing her to do household work and to have not taken care of her medical needs during her ill-health and pregnancy. She further alleged the ﬁrst petitioner to be even putting pressure to reduce consumption of food and to be encouraging the husband in his drinking habit. The second respondent, therefore, sought for justice to herself and her daughter resulting in the Domestic Violence Report by the Protection Oﬃcer, taken cognizance by the Magistrate, seeking reliefs of Protection Order under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) grant of Monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act towards medical expenses and Monetary relief and compensation under Section 22 of the Act apart from Custody Order under Section 21 of the Act. 3. The petitioners contended that the second petitioner is working in State Bank of India at Bangalore and residing separately with his family members even since before the date of marriage of the second respondent with the second petitioner’s brother in May, 2006. The ﬁrst petitioner, aged 60 years, is suffering from high blood pressure and other age related ailments conﬁning her to bed. A petition for restitution of conjugal rights is pending between the couple and the Court at Hyderabad has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the D.V.C. when the marriage and the marital life were in Bangalore. The petitioners alleged the second respondent herself to have left the marital home since May, 2008 and hence, they desired the further proceedings to be quashed. 4. Heard Sri K.Naganna, learned counsel representing Sri K.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt D.Padmavathi, learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri Ruredesh Deshpande, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor/ the first respondent. 5. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in D.V.C. No.2 of 2010 have to be discontinued against the petitioners. 6. The copy of the complaint by the second respondent to the Protection Oﬃcer, furnished by the learned counsel for the second respondent, shows that there were absolutely no speciﬁc allegations against the second petitioner herein about any involvement in the marital life of the second respondent with her husband. The allegations, either general or speciﬁc, were only against the husband, parents- in-law and sister-in-law. The address of the second petitioner given herein indicates him to be a resident of some other area in Bangalore and some other house than that where the husband and the mother-in-law are living, while the address given for the ﬁrst petitioner herein also is the same as that of the husband of the second respondent. The second petitioner, aged 46 years and working in State Bank of India residing separately with his family even since prior to the marriage of second respondent in May, 2006, appears to be natural and acceptable and if no allegation was made against him speciﬁcally in the complaint by the second respondent to the Protection Oﬃcer and if he never lived in domestic relationship in a shared household with the second respondent, he could not have possibly caused domestic violence against the second respondent at any time. 7. While the further proceedings against him are, therefore, to be discontinued, it is, of course, true that the ﬁrst petitioner is an aged lady said to be suﬀering from hypertension and other old age ailments. It is also true that the husband appears to have initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights against the second respondent. However, this enquiry in exercise of inherent powers provided under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being summary in nature and limited in scope, no fact-ﬁnding exercise can or should be undertaken herein. The second respondent appeared to have made an allegation of her parents-in-law putting pressure on her to resign from the job. She also alleged the ﬁrst petitioner to be encouraging drinking habits of her husband and father- in-law and to be pressurizing her to do household work and entertain the guests. She is also allegedly embarrassing the second respondent by requesting the guests to ﬁnd a job to her and above all, the ﬁrst petitioner was alleged to be troubling in not even getting second respondent treated for bleeding she suﬀered during pregnancy. Even when the second respondent was admitted in hospital, she claimed to have been forcibly discharged from the hospital. The claim was that for reducing the household expenses, the ﬁrst petitioner was pressurizing the second respondent to reduce her food consumption and it is not for this Court to go into either the naturality or the acceptability of the allegations made by the second respondent against the ﬁrst petitioner. Even if the ﬁrst petitioner may not be susceptible to other reliefs claimed in D.V.C, the possibility of the second respondent persuading the Court to grant protection order against the ﬁrst petitioner, cannot be ruled out under such circumstances. Hence, the proceedings against her cannot be terminated before the logical conclusion of the case on merits. 8. However, it is represented on behalf of the petitioners that the ﬁrst petitioner being compelled to attend the enquiry before the Court at Hyderabad from Bangalore will be a diﬃcult aﬀair, and her presence may be dispensed with during the enquiry in view of advancement of age and state of health. The request is but reasonable and will not in any manner prejudice the rights of the second respondent, if any, for any protection order against the ﬁrst petitioner. Therefore, while the presence of the ﬁrst petitioner should be dispensed with, the proceedings against the second petitioner shall be discontinued. 9. Accordingly, the D.V.C.No.2 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Hyderabad, against the second petitioner is quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed in respect of the second petitioner and dismissed in respect of the ﬁrst petitioner. But the physical presence of the ﬁrst petitioner before the Court during the enquiry in D.V.C.No.2 of 2010 shall be dispensed with. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 23, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10146 OF 2010 Between: N.Mary and another ...PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10146 OF 2010 23.11.2011 YVL