THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3945 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/Respondent No.1 and Sri V. Srikanth Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. This Criminal Petition is directed against further proceedings in D.V.C.No. 6 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Karimnagar against the petitioners herein. The Domestic Violence Case has its origin in the report of the 2nd respondent herein to the District Collector, Karimnagar alleging that she was married to Rasakonda Anil Krupa Kumar, son of the 1st petitioner on 28.01.1999 at Vavilalapally and her husband started harassing her from a few days after the marriage, being addicted to drinking and other vices. The 1st petitioner was alleged to be supporting the husband and to be instrumental in her husband beating the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent claimed to have been necked out of the matrimonial home in January 2000 by her husband and petitioners 1 to 3 and to have been not taken back even after the birth of a daughter. She claimed that on the intervention of her parents, she and her husband lived together for about one year at Potharam, even where the petitioners were harassing her to bring additional dowry. O.P.No. 672 of 2005 filed by her husband was stated to have been compromised, but still, the conduct of the husband was alleged to have not undergone any change. The 2nd respondent claimed to have given birth to a son on 25.01.2006 and was necked out of the house when she went along with her daughter and son to live with the husband. The husband was stated to have died on 09.08.2007 and she claimed to have participated in the final rites of her husband. She was again necked out by her mother-in-law after the event. She also claimed to have known that by selling away the land belonging to her husband, the amounts were kept in fixed deposit in some others’ names. Therefore, she sought for a right of residence and a right over the amount kept in fixed deposit, against the petitioners. The Protection Officer filed a report before the Court primarily seeking relief regarding residence under Section 19 and any other incidental reliefs against all the petitioners, but the addresses given in Form-I themselves show that all the three petitioners, petitioners 2 and 3 being a Principal and a Physical Director respectively, are residing at different places. The Court is proceeding against the petitioners herein in the domestic violence case on the report of the Protection Officer. The petitioners herein claimed that while the marital relationship between the 2nd respondent and the son of the 1st petitioner is true, H.No. 2-10-819, Christian Colony, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar where the 2nd respondent and her husband were residing for some time is the self-acquired property of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd respondent was claimed to have not lived together with her husband for any significant time and the 2nd respondent was claimed to have joined her husband only in 2005 at the place of her posting. The 1st petitioner’s son was again claimed to have been deserted resulting in Divorce O.P.No. 672 of 2005, which was later withdrawn on an agreement between the parties, but the 2nd respondent’s husband died on 09.08.2007. The 1st petitioner claimed that because of her old age, she became totally disabled and ill and is living with petitioners 2 and 3, her daughters. The 1st petitioner denied the 2nd respondent ever approaching them for anything and petitioners 2 and 3 were claimed to have never stayed at Karimnagar and to be staying with their own families and living separately at Hyderabad. The provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have no application to the petitioners and it is only to knock away the self- acquired property of the 1st petitioner, the case has been foisted. The petitioners therefore, desired the further proceedings against them to be quashed. The point for consideration is whether ex facie there is no prima facie material to support the continuance of the domestic violence case against the petitioners. Insofar as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, the 2nd petitioner is stated to be working as Principal at B.S.E. Nursing College, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, while the 3rd petitioner is stated to be employed as Physical Director in Government Boys & Girls Junior College, Afjalgung, Hyderabad. They are aged 53 and 43 years respectively and are stated to have been married to Sri J.V. Chandrasekhar and Sri N. Dhanraj respectively. It will be but natural and reasonable to accept their contention in such circumstances that by virtue of their marital status and employment, they are living elsewhere than the family of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent, carrying on their own avocations and leading a family life with their respective husbands and other members of their families. The report of the 2nd respondent, which led to the domestic violence case, made omnibus allegations against petitioners 2 and 3 also, but it is not clear as to how petitioners 2 and 3 would have indulged in any acts of domestic violence in January 2000 or later because the 2nd respondent was said to be leading her marital life at Karimnagar with her husband and his mother. Insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned, it was specifically alleged that she was supporting the husband of the 2nd respondent in abusing and beating her and humiliating her for not bringing any dowry. The 1st petitioner being a party to the 2nd respondent being evicted from the matrimonial home by force is not impossible, in view of the claim of the 1st petitioner, her son and the 2nd respondent living together for sometime being not specifically denied. The complaint of the 2nd respondent specially alleges that even after the birth of the son on 25.01.2006, it was the husband and the mother-in-law that did not permit the 2nd respondent and her children to come back to the matrimonial home. The acts of sale of land and deposit of amounts in fixed deposits in some others’ names were also not specifically attributed to petitioners 2 and 3. In the circumstances, though the chance of the 2nd respondent succeeding in getting an appropriate relief under Section 19 of the special Statute, against the 1st petitioner cannot be totally ruled out, there appears absolutely no such possibility of grant of any relief under the Act against petitioners 2 and 3, who appear to have been involved only because of their being sisters of the husband of the 2nd respondent. Invocation of inherent powers of this Court under such circumstances, in favour of petitioners 2 and 3 is called for in the interests of justice. Therefore, further proceedings in D.V.C.No. 6 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Karimnagar against petitioners 2 and 3 are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed in respect of petitioners 2 and 3 only, while it is dismissed in respect of the 1st petitioner. No costs. -------------------------------- (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 2nd November 2011 ksld