THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.7134 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2009 on the file of Project Director, Women & Child Development Agency, Medak at Sangareddy. The petitioners are the Accused and the second respondent is the defacto complainant. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Domestic Violence Case. The allegations made against the accused, in brief, are as follows: The complainant is the legally wedded wife of first respondent in the case and the respondents 2 to 9 are close relatives of the first respondent. The marriage of the first respondent with the complainant took place on 25.1.1999 and at the time of marriage, the parents of the complainant gave cash of Rs.2,50,000/- to the first respondent towards dowry and also 25 tulas of gold, apart from Hero Honda Motorcycle and household articles worth Rs.2,00,000/- and during the wedlock, the complainant gave birth to one male and one female child and thereafter the first respondent went to Yambu at K.S.A. for employment and subsequently, the complainant joined the first respondent at Yambu and there she was driven out of the in-laws house and thereafter the first respondent started harassing the complainant through phone for want of additional dowry and also demanded for new house at Hyderabad and as the complainant was the only daughter of her parents, they agreed to provide it and consequently, the parents of the complainant purchased a new house at Toli Chowki worth Rs.55,00,000/- and presented it to the respondents and not satisfied with that, they further harassed the complainant for want of new furniture in the said house and also for registering that house in the name of the first respondent and as the complainant refused to do so, she was necked out of the matrimonial house and therefore having no other alternative, the complainant took shelter at her parents house. Further, later, the complainant lodged report with the police at Sanga Reddy against the respondents and others on the basis of which, the police registered the case in Cr.No.117 of 2008 in C.C.No.899 of 2008 under Sections 498-A IPC, 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act which is pending before the Court concerned. Further, thereafter, the complainant filed M.C.No.44 of 2008 against the first respondent which is also pending. Further, in the meanwhile, the first respondent came to India and threatened the complainant with dire consequences and also is tried to marry another woman and in order to prevent the arrest, he again went back to Yambu. Hence, the complainant prays to take necessary action and punish the respondents according to law and also to address summons to Indian Embassy to call back the first respondent to meet ends of justice. There are no specific reliefs sought for under the relevant provisions of Domestic Violence Act. It is contended on behalf of the respondents 2 to 9 that the first respondent and the respondents 2 to 9 have been leaving separately in different houses and in different localities since 10 years and in fact the first respondent has been residing in Saudi Arabia since more than 10 years and the relevant provisions of Domestic Violence are not attracted here and further in order to harass the respondents 2 to 9, the present case was filed and hence the same is liable to be quashed. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is pertinent to note here that no prayer is made under any of the relevant provisions of Domestic Violence Act. Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act provides for granting protection orders, section 19 of the Act provides for granting residence orders, section 20 of the Act provides for granting necessary monetary reliefs and section 22 of the Act provides for granting necessary compensation and so on subject to the satisfaction of the requirements of section 2(f), 2(g), 2(q) and 2(s) of the Act, which reads as under: “2(f) : ‘Domestic relationship’ means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; 2(g) : ‘Domestic violence’ has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3; 2(q) : ‘Respondent’ means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act; provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner; 2(s) : ‘Shared household’ means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;” In order to attract the provisions of the Act, the respondents 2 to 9 should have resided along with the complainant in a shared house. Further, even as per the record, the respondents 2 to 9 have been living in different addresses and there is absolutely no basis to say that they all lived or living in a shared house along with the first respondent. Therefore, the provisions of Domestic Violence Act are not applicable here. Further, if at all the complainant got any grievance against the respondents 2 to 9, she has to approach a different forum under Section 498 IPC. Hence, the proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2009 are liable to be quashed. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2009 are quashed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 29-10-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.7134 of 2009 29.10.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.7134 of 2009 Date: 29th October, 2011 Between: Mir Sajid Ali Zuberi and others. .. Petitioners/Accused And State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another. .. Respondents