IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6437 of 2010 Between: Saripalli Venkata Rao .. Petitioner AND Saripalli Lakshmibhai and 2 others .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri P. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Subhash Chandra Bose, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri C. Prakash, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/3rd respondent. The petitioner is the sole respondent in DVC.No.11 of 2010 on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam initiated at the instance of respondents 1 and 2 herein. The respondents 1 and 2 claimed the 1st respondent to be the wife married to the petitioner on 27-06-1989 and the 2nd respondent to be the son born out of the said wedlock. The respondents claimed in the Domestic Violence Case that the 1st respondent was never treated properly by the husband who was addicted to bad vices and the respondents 1 and 2 claimed to have been deserted by the petitioner herein after he developed illicit intimacy with one Sandhya. Therefore, they sought for various reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) against the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he married Sandhya on 17-08- 1988 and was blessed with a son during the wedlock. When he left the house without intimating his wife in 2007 due to financial troubles, Sandhya gave a report to the police, Gajuwaka, which was registered in Crime No.197 of 2007. Household card was also issued to him including his wife Sandhya and son Akhileshu and the voter identity card of Sandhya mentions him as her husband. The petitioner claims to be the son of Appa Rao and not Koteswara Rao as claimed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the Domestic Violence Case and the petitioner even disowned the photographs filed by the respondents in the Domestic Violence Case claiming the same to be not representing him in them in any manner. The petitioner claimed to be working as Transport Guide for a salary of Rs.1,500/- from Prabhu Transport in Vijayanagaram and desired the further proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case to be quashed for that reason. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case can be terminated against the petitioner. The contents of the Criminal Petition and the material papers enclosed thereto showed that the identity of the husband of the 1st respondent described as Saripalli Venkata Rao @ Venkatesh, son of Koteswara Rao in the Domestic Violence Case is disputed by the petitioner herein claiming to be the son of Appa Rao and claiming to be having nothing to do with the respondents 1 and 2. The material papers also disclosed that one Sandhya gave a report to the police in Crime No.197 of 2007 of Gajuwaka police about missing of her husband and the petitioner as described himself herein was said to be the employee of Prabhu Transport as per the certificate issued by them. A copy of the marriage invitation card between Sandhya and the petitioner also has been filed. However, the material papers also contained the receipt issued by the temple for the marriage performed between the 1st respondent herein and Saripalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o Koteswara Rao, who the 1st respondent claims to be corresponding to the petitioner herein. So, the question that arises for consideration of the trial Court in the Domestic Violence Case is about the identity of the husband of the 1st respondent and the existence of any matrimonial relationship between the petitioner herein and the 1st respondent. These are questions of fact, which need to be determined on the basis of oral and documentary evidence to be placed before the trial Court and this Court in a restricted consideration as to whether the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is called for or not cannot convert itself into a fact finding Court. When ex facie the claims of respondents 1 and 2 about the matrimonial relationship with the petitioner herein cannot be dismissed as absurd or impossible, it is not possible to terminate the proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case prematurely without allowing an enquiry on merits in accordance with law. However, the petitioner claims that he is a petty employee in a transport agency at Vijayanagaram and is suffering physically and monetarily to attend on all dates of hearing before the Court at Visakhapatnam without detriment to his job and health. If so, he can always approach the trial Court with a request to dispense with his personal presence, which has to be considered with all sympathy by the trial Court. Therefore, if the petitioner so desires and is so advised, he can make an application to the trial Court to dispense with his personal presence before it on all future dates of hearing except when his physical presence is absolutely indispensable and necessary for further progress of the case. If such a request were to be made, the trial Court shall positively consider the same. Subject to the said direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-10-2011 Ksn