HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7539 of 2009 Dated : 17.09.2009 Between : C.Narayana Swamy and another ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7539 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri C.Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. It is true that the petitioners, who are the parents-in-law of the second respondent, along with their son were acquitted of the alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the Judgment of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Kurnool, in C.C.No.457 of 2007 dated 19.08.2008. It is also true that the learned Magistrate appears to have come to a conclusion that there was no harassment for dowry at Kurnool and that evidence of the prosecution witnesses having several contradictions did not inspire confidence at all. It is further true that it was almost on the verge of the order in the criminal case that the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, were initiated by the second respondent. However, the relief sought for in the domestic violence case is for protection of the woman against domestic violence and also orders concerning the residential right in the shared household. The petitioners and the husband of the second respondent are claimed to be residing in the same house and therefore, for determination of the right of the second respondent to reliefs sought for, the presence of the petitioners in the domestic violence case is proper and necessary. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to S.R.Batra vs. Taruna Batra[1] wherein the Apex Court observed that the rights available under any law to the wife can only be as against the husband and not as against the parents-in-law. However, with reference to the question of shared household in that case, it was found that the house belonged to the mother-in-law and not to the husband in which context the said observation was made. The Apex Court itself also observed that the wife is entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, which would only mean a house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family, in which the husband is a member. Therefore, the right of the second respondent to any relief is to be properly determined in the presence of the petitioners and consequently there cannot be any premature termination of the proceedings against the petitioners by any interim intervention in exercise of any inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Coming to the fact that the petitioners are only the parents-in-law, the trial Court will of course consider not requiring their personal presence on all the dates of hearing except whenever such personal appearance is necessary, more so, when the determination required in the domestic violence case is more civil in nature. With the above observations, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th September, 2009 SUR [1] (2007) SCC (Crl) 56