THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4889 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner herein is said to be 12th respondent in D.V.C.No.11 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru. The complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent herein against her husband and other family members, but however the petitioner herein is shown as 12th respondent. The allegations attributed to him are that in a divorce petition in O.P.No.1 of 2009 a compromise was arrived at and some amount has to be paid. The contents of the petition against 12th respondent are as under: “the 12th respondent was acted as the key elder in the settlement and played an important role in arriving the settlement, he drafted the settlement deed. The 12th respondent also stood as guarantor to the payment stating that “he will pay if the 1 to 5th respondents failed to pay the agreed amount or played any fraud”. After obtaining divorce the 12th respondent leading all the respondents by giving mala fide ideas to escape from the payment of the amount and advising the respondents to avoid the payment and to harass the petitioner and her minor children and also her parents” “the 12th respondent is running a college by name Priyadarshini Degree College, beside Police Station at Jangareddygudem, he is proclaiming that he is having very powerful influence in the political as well as police circles and threatening the petitioner with dire consequences and also threatening the petitioner to withdraw the petitions and cases against the respondents” But, however, in order to attract the provisions under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, there should be some domestic relationship. Evidently, the petitioner herein does not belong to even the caste of the complainant nor a relative coming within the definition of domestic relationship under the Act. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioner herein are misconceived and they cannot be proceeded with. If the petitioner has committed any breach of promise or obligation, the 2nd respondent can take other action open to her under law. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 08-07-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4889 of 2011 DATE: 08-07-2011 MR