THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Crl.P.No. 8765 of 2010 ORDER The petitioners 1 and 2 are brothers-in-law of the aggrieved party in D.V.C.No.17 of 2010 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Anantapur, in which the Protection Officer on behalf of the aggrieved person claimed reliefs of Protection under Section 18, Residence under Section 19, Monetary reliefs under Section 20 and Compensation under Section 22 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘the Act’). It is contended that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute, in respect of which, a suit was already filed and decided and an appeal is being filed. It is contended that the petitioners are retired persons and that they are being harassed in civil matter by filing this domestic violence case. The proceedings in domestic violence case are also civil disputes, but decided by criminal Court applying procedure prescribed by Cr.P.C. At any rate, presence of the respondents in DVC is not wholly relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter. It is stated that both the petitioners are represented by an Advocate in the lower Court. Having regard to the reliefs claimed by the aggrieved party/second respondent against the petitioners 1 and 2 in the case, it cannot be said that they are not necessary parties and that false case was foisted against them. It is for the Magistrate to decide the same. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispense with personal attendance of the petitioners 1 and 2, who are the respondents 1 and 2 in D.V.C.No.17 of 2010 during enquiry of the case, except on the date of delivery of order. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date:30.08.2010 sj