IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.2445 of 2010 Between: S. Nageswara Rao & others. … Petitioners And S. Komala & another. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.2445 of 2010 JUDGMENT:- This criminal petition has been directed against the order of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 15.07.2009, in DVCMP.No.997 of 2009 in DVC.No.7 of 2009 directing payment of monthly interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the ﬁrst respondent herein and her minor son by the second respondent during the pendency of the domestic violence case by 5th of every month. The main domestic violence case has been ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent herein for herself and her minor son claiming protection order, return of her belongings, monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to her and her son and Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for the physical and mental torture inﬂicted upon her through acts of domestic violence by the respondents, who are the parents-in-law and the brother of her husband. Pending determination of the main domestic violence case, the petitioners therein sought for monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each, as they were unable to maintain themselves and as the father-in-law wilfully neglected to perform his moral and legal obligations towards the petitioners. She also requested for further direction not to dispose of the gold ornaments and other articles belonging to her, pending the main domestic violence case. The respondents contested the main domestic violence case denying the allegations of the petitioners and in the impugned order the learned Magistrate, after referring to the claim made by the petitioners, noted the admitted relationship between the parties and the allegation that the ﬁrst respondent is a helper in HCL, Hyderabad, drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. As the learned Magistrate considered it ﬁt on the facts and circumstances of the case to grant interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the ﬁrst respondent herein and Rs.1,000/- to the second respondent herein per month, the impugned order was accordingly passed referring to the claim that the petitioners in the domestic violence case were driven out of the shared house on 03.03.2009 by the respondents to the case. The said order is challenged in this criminal petition contending that the ﬁrst respondent herein along with the second respondent is residing with her parents after demise of her husband on her own and is not entitled to claim any maintenance. The petitioners also claimed that the ﬁrst petitioner is earning only Rs.3,000/- per month, which is required for the medical necessities of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 themselves and the ﬁrst respondent, who is residing separately on her own, could not have been considered to be given any interim maintenance. Sri V. Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. Laxman Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Rudresh Deshpande representing the learned Public Prosecutor/ third respondent are heard. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is unsustainable in law. The relationship between the parties is admitted. The fact that the husband of the ﬁrst respondent is no more and the widowed daughter-in-law is not living together with the parents-in-law is also not in dispute. It was claimed in the main domestic violence case that the ﬁrst petitioner herein is a Government employee having enough source of income to meet the expenses of maintaining the petitioners in the domestic violence case. It was also claimed that there are properties at Shyamlal building, Begumpet, fetching a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- and also at Dammaiguda and Raigiri. The salary of the ﬁrst petitioner herein was stated to be Rs.45,000/-, who was also stated to be doing some ﬁnance business earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The respondents in their counter aﬃdavit in the main domestic violence case denied owning of any properties or receiving any rents or doing any ﬁnance business and it was claimed that the ﬁrst respondent is a petty Government employee with a meagre salary. Sri V. Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited attention to S.R. Batra and another vs. Taruna Batra [1], wherein the Apex Court considered the entitlement of a daughter-in-law to claim any right to live in the house belonging exclusively to the mother-in-law and answered the question in negative. The Apex Court, however, referred to the right of the wife to claim right to residence in a shared household and a shared household would only mean the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. On that principle, the right of the ﬁrst respondent herein to make any claim with reference to the house property said to be owned at Shyamlal building, Begumpet, Hyderabad, has to be determined with reference to the nature of the property vis-à-vis the petitioners herein are concerned. Sri K. Laxman Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, referred to the decision reported in Mangat Mal (dead) and another vs. Punni Devi (dead) and others[2], wherein the Apex Court referred to the grant of maintenance to enable a lady to live in a manner more or less to which she was accustomed and therefore the concept of maintenance includes provision for food and clothing and the like and takes into account the basic need of a roof over the head. The concept of maintenance is not the question in issue herein, but the liability of the petitioners herein to be subjected to such an order of maintenance in favour of respondents 1 and 2. Though Sri Ramchander Goud basically disputes the liability of the parents-in-law or the brother-in-law to answer any claim of respondents 1 and 2, the relevant provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (the parties being Hindus, being admitted) in Sections 19, 21 and 22 show that on proof of the necessary ingredients of the said provisions, the ﬁrst and the second respondents may be entitled to impose a legal obligation on the petitioners or more particularly the ﬁrst petitioner to answer the claim for maintenance for them. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides in Section 20 for grant of monetary reliefs including the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force and the deﬁnition of word ‘respondent’ in Section 2(q) includes not only an adult male person, but also a relative of the husband. It is hence beyond question that the parents-in-law and the brother-in-law will come within the scope of being a relative of the husband or the male partner, who also can be sued under the special statute. As such, ex facie, it cannot be said that none of the petitioners or the ﬁrst petitioner need not answer any claim for maintenance by respondents 1 and 2 at all, if the allegations in the domestic violence case are proved. It should be noted that the domestic violence case or the counter do not clarify the nature of the properties said to be possessed or owned by the ﬁrst petitioner herein. It is a matter for enquiry in the main domestic violence case so as to determine fastening of any liability to pay maintenance by the first petitioner or the petitioners. However, the impugned order proceeds solely with respect to the salary of Rs.10,000/- per month allegedly earned by the ﬁrst petitioner to ﬁx the interim maintenance at Rs.3,000/- per month to both the respondents 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the parties are not in dispute about the individual earnings of the ﬁrst petitioner being not the relevant consideration for ﬁxing any maintenance in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Magistrate has not referred to any other circumstances on which he has concluded the ﬁrst petitioner to be liable to pay such interim maintenance. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained being passed on the basis of the income earned by the ﬁrst petitioner and has to be set aside. However, instead of again directing an enquiry into the miscellaneous petition, in view of the fact that the main domestic violence case is pending since more than two years, the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the main domestic violence case itself for determination of the rights of the parties on merits in accordance with law at the earliest possible time, without further protracting the proceedings. In the circumstances, the impugned order has to be set aside and the miscellaneous petition has to be dismissed leaving it open to the parties to raise all their contentions concerning the relief of maintenance or the other reliefs claimed in the main domestic violence case to be determined on merits by the trial Court. Therefore, the order, dated 15.07.2009, in DVCMP.No.997 of 2009 in DVC.No.7 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is set aside and the said DVCMP.No.997 of 2009 is dismissed without costs. The XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is directed to dispose of DVC.No.7 of 2009 on his ﬁle as expeditiously as possible, after giving every opportunity of hearing to both the parties, at any rate, within three months from the date of communication of this order and any observations made in this order shall not inﬂuence the determination of the main domestic violence case on merits. The criminal petition is ordered accordingly. ________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16.11.2011 ES [1] (2007) 3 SCC 169 [2] (1995) 6 SCC 88