THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.13678 of 2010 ORDER: In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the three petitioners herein are seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings against them in a domestic violence case i.e. D.V.C.No.196 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (trial court). The petitioners herein are respondents in the said DVC case and that has been filed by the second respondent herein under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short Act). 2. The first petitioner is admittedly the husband of the second respondent and petitioners 2 and 3 are to be specific the father and the mother respectively of the first petitioner. The said DVC case has been filed by the second respondent making certain allegations of additional dowry harassment, domestic violence by all the petitioners and also the neglect of her maintenance by the first petitioner and certain monetary reliefs. The plea of the petitioners in substance is that all the allegations are baseless and therefore the said case should be quashed. 3. At this stage it would be relevant to note the reliefs claimed in the DVC case a copy of which has been filed by the petitioners themselves. In all the second respondent claimed seven reliefs. So far as the first petitioner/husband who is the first respondent in the DVC case the second respondent claimed a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards rent for her separate accommodation and also another sum of Rs.7,000/- towards her maintenance expenses and these reliefs are claimable under Sections 19(1)(f) and 20(1)(d) of the Act on proof that domestic violence has taken place. Further the second respondent also claimed for a direction not to commit any domestic violence, to return her jahez articles and also a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation for physical and mental agony caused by the alleged harassment. These two reliefs are claimed against all the petitioners. 4. So far as the first petitioner is concerned the second respondent has made various allegations as to how her life went on with the first petitioner after her marriage at Hyderabad and how he subjected her to harassment and cruelty for additional dowry and how he neglected her in providing maintenance to her, how he forced her to use contraceptives and how he coerced her and took additional dowry amounts. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that all these allegations are false. It is difficult to decide about the truthfulness or otherwise of the above allegations in this petition. 5. What should be noted is that a perusal of the petition or pleadings in the DVC case would show that it does contain allegations against the first petitioner which give her a cause of action for filing the present DVC case under the Act and claiming the reliefs against him which are already mentioned supra. In para-5 of the DVC petition it is averred by the second respondent that she also gave a police report against the petitioners complaining harassment and that is registered as Crime No.339/2010 in Women Police Station CCS, Hyderabad. Basing upon this criminal case, the petitioners counsel contended that she can pursue her remedies in the criminal case and that this DVC case is not maintainable. It may be noted that Section 36 of the Act says that the remedies provided for under this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Hence it follows that the registration of the above criminal case is not a bar for these DVC case proceedings. Hence in view of the above allegations made against the first petitioner and the legal position obtaining from Section 36 of the Act and for the aforesaid reasons it follows that the DVC case against the first petitioner cannot be quashed. 6. That takes me to the case of the second and third petitioners who are the parents of the first petitioner. In the DVC case itself they are described as residents of Koppikunta village in East Godavari District. The contention of the petitioners counsel is that soon after the marriage the first petitioner and the second respondent lived at Hyderabad and the allegations show that the alleged harassment was from the first petitioner at Hyderabad and therefore the case against these petitioners should be quashed on the ground that they cannot be held responsible for whatever that has happened at Hyderabad. A perusal of the allegations made in the DVC case show that this contention also cannot be accepted. 7. The version of the second respondent is that the first petitioner harassed her on the instigation of these two petitioners (his parents). It is also her case that these two petitioners were in contact with the first petitioner and instigated him to harass her and that they also used to threaten her on telephone. It is further alleged that the first amount of additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh was received by these two petitioners also along with the first petitioner by demanding the same and they were instrumental in instigating the first petitioner to neglect her and turn her out and that they got possession of the jahez articles and their value is given by the second respondent at Rs.1,50,000/-. 8. On the face of the allegations made against these petitioners 2 and 3 also, it cannot be said that they do not, even if believed in their entirety, disclose a cause of action for the reliefs claimed against them in the DVC case. The mere fact that these petitioners are staying in a village in East Godavari District cannot therefore be a ground to quash the proceedings against them. Section 36 of the Act would also equally apply to them and therefore the registration of the above police case cannot be a ground to quash the case against them. 9. It is now well settled that the Act has been enacted in 2005 for protection of women allegedly suffering domestic violence and sufferings at the hands of the husband and his relatives and such relatives would also include women going by the definition of respondent contained in Section 2(q) (read with its proviso) of the Act. Except raising contentions that the allegations are false, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not raise any legal aspect relating to the maintainability of the DVC case in question. To repeat, the truthfulness or otherwise of all the allegations made in the DVC case fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in this petition. Accordingly the relief of quashing the DVC case is rejected. 10. Parting with the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioners urged that since the petitioners 2 and 3 are aged people they cannot attend the trial court regularly from their village in East Godavari District and therefore their presence before the trial court for every date of hearing may be dispensed with. Having regard to their ages and the place where they are residing, the presence of petitioners 2 and 3 for every date of hearing before the trial court is dispensed with and they can be represented by their counsel. The trial court shall however summon their presence as and when it considers it necessary. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 11th July 2011 CVRK