IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7904 of 2008 Between: E.Nageshwar and others …Petitioners AND Smt. Veena W/o.Nageshwar And another …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7904 of 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel on record. The petitioners herein are respondents 1 to 4 in D.V.C.No.11 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The ﬁrst respondent herein ﬁled petition under Section 37(2)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for the purpose of convenience) before the Court below. The brief facts of the case are as follows. It is stated that the marriage of the ﬁrst respondent with the ﬁrst petition was performed on 22.03.2003; that they lived happily for a period of one year and were blessed with two children; that after the ﬁrst child was born, the ﬁrst petitioner started harassing the ﬁrst respondent for additional dowry; that the petitioners also started harassing the ﬁrst respondent for number of times on petty issues; that the petitioners are not allowing the parents of the ﬁrst respondent to their house and are not allowing the ﬁrst respondent to go to her parents house; that the petitioners are not providing money for maintenance, food and cloths; that the petitioners are also demanding gifts and gold ornaments. It is also stated that proceedings under the Act is not maintainable against a woman and there is a bar under Section 2(a) of the Act and the fourth petitioner is the brother-in-law and has nothing to do with the household affairs of the respondent and is living separately. It is further stated that the second petitioner is the father of the ﬁrst petitioner and the property possessed by him is self-acquired property and the respondent cannot claim any right over the said property; that the ﬁrst petitioner also gave complaint on 03.04.2008 for beating the petitioner and his parents i.e. petitioners 2 and 3; that the present petition ﬁled under the Act is only a counterblast to the complaint given by the petitioner earlier. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings can be quashed insofar as it relates to the third petitioner, Smt Rajakala only. Insofar as it relates to petitioners 1, 2 and 4, the petition is liable to be dismissed, as there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the proceedings in D.V.C.No.11 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District are quashed insofar it relates to the third petitioner, Smt Rajalaka. The petition stands dismissed insofar as it relates to petitioners 1, 2 and 4. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. ____________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J March 18, 2010 Bvv