IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3699 OF 2010. Date:27.04.2010 Between:- Gunji Sathaiah and another ..Petitioners/Respondents 2 and 3 And Gunji Sridevi and another .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioners 1 and 2 are parents-in-law of the first respondent. At the instance of the first respondent, the Protection Officer filed D.V.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Medchal, Cyberabad against the petitioners 1 and 2 and their son who is husband of the first respondent. In the report given by the first respondent to the Protection Officer, she alleged several acts of domestic violence by the husband on the instigation of his parents who are the petitioners 1 and 2. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners 1 and 2 are not necessary parties to this petition. Further, in column No.2 of Form II filed by the Protection Officer, several prayers were made before the Magistrate. They include protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20, compensation or damages under Section 22 and also interim orders in respect thereof under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Granting of reliefs and against whom they are to be granted, are matters which are within the ambit of enquiry by the Magistrate. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the petitioners are residents of Doddavaram village of Prakasam District and that the alleged acts of domestic violence took place at Haryana state where husband of the first respondent has been working and that the petitioners, who are aged about seventy years and sixty years respectively, will not be able to attend the Court at Medchal of Ranga Reddy District on every date of hearing. Since the first respondent is living with her parents at Medchal and since previously, counselling was made by the police to her husband in Medchal police station, the petitioner filed domestic violence case at Medchal. It cannot be said that the petitioner has chosen Medchal as venue for filing the case to harass any of the respondents therein. Hence, the petition is dismissed. However, personal attendance of the petitioners 1 and 2, who are respondents 2 and 3 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010, is dispensed with in the lower Court. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 27th April 2010 AMD