IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Wednesday, July 20, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.P.No. 610 of 2009 Between: Gunana Kishore and others …Petitioners and The State of AP and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 610 of 2009 O r d e r: Heard Sri B.S.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri A.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Earlier this petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence today on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and as third respondent’s counsel expressed no objection, this petition is restored and taken up today itself for disposal on merits. 2. This petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in D.V.C.C.No. 23 of 2008 (for short ‘the case’) on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, Srikakulam District (trial court). The third respondent herein filed that case under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming various reliefs against these petitioners. The first petitioner is stated to be the husband of the third respondent and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be the parents of the first petitioner. Fourth petitioner is stated to be the maternal uncle and the fifth petitioner is stated to be a friend of the first petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in fact there was no marriage between the first petitioner and the third respondent, that they also never lived together in a relation in the nature of marriage and the case filed by her is a false one. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent pointed out that the marriage did take place and in fact the first petitioner also brought suit – O.S.No. 36 of 2011 in the trial court itself for declaration that the marriage is void and this is sufficient to show that the marriage did take place. 4. The allegations in the present case would show that the first petitioner and the third respondent got married and lived together for some time and of course whether there was marriage or not is a question of fact to be decided on evidence by the trial court and hence it cannot be gone into in this petition. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are admittedly the parents of the first petitioner and various reliefs are claimed against them including the one relating to compensation also. Thus the liability of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 has to be decided on evidence as it is a disputed question of fact. Hence this petition insofar as petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned is dismissed. 5. So far as petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, admittedly, fourth petitioner is the maternal uncle and fifth petitioner is stated to be a friend of the first petitioner. It is not made clear in the case as to how they are liable to provide maintenance or shared accommodation to the third respondent or how they are liable to pay her any compensation. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that D.V.C.C.No. 23 of 2008 against petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 is liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed. However the trial court can proceed against petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 also in case the evidence let in by the prosecution warrants such a step. 6. This petition for the aforesaid reasons is therefore partly allowed as indicated above. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. July 20, 2011. *BVS Note: Furnish CC as soon as possible. (BO) BVS.