IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.1868 of 2009 Between: Leburi Chandrasenamma and others .. Petitioners AND Leburi Krishna Veni and another .. Respondents ORDER: The criminal petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C. No.2 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. The domestic violence case against the husband of the 1st respondent herein and the petitioners herein is the consequence of the petition ﬁled under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) by the 1st respondent herein before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The 1st respondent herein claimed that at the time of her marriage with the 1st respondent in the domestic violence case on 21-01-2007, a dowry of Rs.11,00,000/- and ‘Adapaduchu Katnam’ of Rs.50,000/-, gold ornaments of 48 tulas and house hold articles were given apart from her mother meeting the expenses of the marriage. A ﬂat in HUDA layout, Visakhapatnam was given as ‘Sthreedhana’ to the 1st respondent herein and she claimed that she, her husband and the 1st petitioner herein lived together at Kolkata after the marriage. She claimed that since then she was being demanded to sell away the ﬂat to enable purchase of a vacant land, for which the mother and other elders of the 1st respondent herein were not willing. When the husband and petitioners 1 to 3 approached petitioners 4 and 5 herein, the ﬂat was ultimately sold away and the amount was invested in a bank in the name of the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent herein further claimed that the sale proceeds of the ﬂat were being demanded to be paid to them by her husband and petitioners 1 to 3 and she claimed to have been harassed physically and mentally since then, as she was not inclined to accept the demand. She alleged incidents during March, 2007, during which the amounts deposited were withdrawn by the husband, but still the harassment continued. She further alleged about an incident at the house of petitioners 2 and 3 where petitioners 4 and 5 were also present and all of them demanded the sale proceeds of the ﬂat to be given to them. The 3rd petitioner was alleged to have insisted on accepting the demand, failing which the husband will not lead any conjugal life with the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent herein further alleged the incidents on 04-05-2007 and 19-05-2007 and claimed that the mother/1st petitioner herein sold away the gold ornaments of the 1st respondent herein weighing 30 tulas and took the amount against the will of the 1st respondent herein. She further alleged the incident on 13-05-2007 on the birthday of her husband, when the 1st petitioner herein harassed her. She also alleged that on 07-06-2007 the husband and his mother beat her, which was witnessed by the other flat owners and servant maid. She further stated about her being humiliated by a galata on 25-06-2007 by the husband and the mother. She further stated that on 05-07-2007, the husband took her to go by train and the mother-in-law asked her to inform her mother about the harassment, so that she will pay more money. The 1st respondent herein also stated about another incident on 10-08-2007 when her mother was informed by the 1st petitioner herein that the husband will not come to their house unless the amount is paid as demanded. She also stated that on 24-08-2007 and 10-09-2007 when the senior paternal uncle of the 1st respondent herein and his son met the respondents to the domestic violence case, he was abused in a loud language and was humiliated. The 1st respondent herein also claimed that on 07-12-2007 her sister and brother-in-law were necked out of the house by the husband and mother-in-law and on 19-01-2008 and 21- 01-2008 there were attempts by her and her mother, paternal uncle, sister and brother-in-law at Kolkata to settle the issues, but the mother-in-law went away and the husband necked out the 1st respondent herein. On 22-01-2008 the husband was stated to have asked the 1st respondent herein to come to Hyderabad and on 25-02-2008 a meeting at the house of the 4th petitioner herein was arranged, wherein the husband again refused to live with the 1st respondent herein unless she brings the amount. The 1st respondent, therefore, claimed to have ﬁled a case in crime No.363 of 2008 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents to the domestic violence case, even after which she was threatened by the husband and his sister and her husband. The 1st respondent herein claimed that she has no income of her own, while her husband is earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month and is refusing and neglecting to maintain her. Therefore, she sought for protection order against the respondents to the domestic violence case, a residence order to stay undisturbed in the shared household, execution of bonds by the respondents to the domestic violence case assuring not to repeat domestic violence and monetary relief of Rs.10,00,000/- apart from monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/- from her husband. 3. This petition being proceeded with by the learned Magistrate in D.V.C. No.2 of 2009 was challenged by respondents 2 to 6 to the domestic violence case/petitioners 1 to 5 herein contending that all the allegations of the 1st respondent herein in the domestic violence case are false and they are not responsible in any manner for the marital life of the 1st respondent or her husband working at Kolkata. The petitioners claimed that any relief could have been claimed only against the husband and not against them and they also stated that petitioners 2 to 5 are residing at Hyderabad and are no way connected with the 1st respondent and her husband. They further claimed that petitioners 1, 3 and 5 cannot be termed as adult male members of the description under Section 2(q) of the Act and no relief can be granted against them. They also claimed that they have no domestic relationship with the 1st respondent and never stayed in any shared household with the 1st respondent, due to which no relief could have been claimed or given under Section 12 of the Act and therefore, they desired that the further proceedings in the domestic violence case be quashed while claiming that petitioners 4 and 5, who are senior citizens, are no way concerned with the family aﬀairs of the other petitioners against the 1st respondent. 4. Sri C. Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri O. Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel representing the 1st respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor/2nd respondent are heard. 5. The point for consideration is whether the domestic violence case against the petitioners has to be terminated ? 6. Point: A close and careful perusal of the contents of the petition under Section 12 of the Act in D.V.C. No.2 of 2009 by the 1st respondent herein shows that petitioners 4 and 5 herein are admittedly not the immediate members of the family of the 1st respondent or her husband. Petitioners 4 and 5 herein were described as relatives by the 1st respondent without specifying the nature of relationship of petitioners 4 and 5 with the family of the husband of the 1st respondent and the reference to them in para III (d) of the petition was about petitioners 4 and 5 approaching the 1st respondent’s mother etc., to convey the demand of the other respondents to the domestic violence case about paying the sale proceeds of the ﬂat. The next reference to petitioners 4 and 5 is about the mother, sister and brother-in-law of the 1st respondent herein going to the house of respondents 3 and 4 to the domestic violence case where petitioners 4 and 5 herein made it clear about the husband leaving the 1st respondent herein unless the sale proceeds of the ﬂat are given. The only impression that can be gathered from the said allegation is that petitioners 4 and 5 herein might have conveyed the claim of respondents 1 to 4 to the domestic violence case and what they desired the 1st respondent herein to do. No speciﬁc allegations were made about the 2nd petitioner herein speaking with the 1st respondent herein on that occasion and the next reference to petitioners 4 and 5 is their informing the family members of the 1st respondent herein already to send the amount. Again they were stated to have enquired the mother of the husband/1st petitioner herein, when the 1st respondent herein telephoned to them on 24-08-2007 and informed regarding her husband. Even when the senior paternal uncle of the 1st respondent herein met petitioners 4 and 5 herein, they merely informed him to meet respondents 3 and 4 to the domestic violence case, according to the domestic violence case and they were only claimed to have supported the other respondents in all their harassment of the 1st respondent herein. Again the family members of the 1st respondent herein were claimed to have met the respondents to the domestic violence case on 25-02-2008 at the house of 4th petitioner herein, where the husband informed that he was not going to live with the 1st respondent herein. In none of these events, petitioners 4 and 5 were claimed to have played any active role even according to the 1st respondent herein and their role more or less seems to be conﬁned to conveying what the husband and members of his family desired the 1st respondent herein to do in respect of the ﬂat or any other things relating to the matrimonial life of the 1st respondent herein. They were not claimed even in the domestic violence case to have instigated the other respondents to the case to indulge in any acts of domestic violence or to be a cause for misconduct of the husband and members of his family towards the 1st respondent herein. Their being physically present on the occasions when the 1st respondent herein interacted with her husband and other members of his family or their conveying what the husband and other members of his family wanted to be conveyed to the 1st respondent herein could not have been understood as positive support from petitioners 4 and 5 herein to the other respondents to domestic violence case. In the absence of any positive acts of commission or omission attributed to respondents 4 and 5 herein concerning the matrimonial life or domestic relationship of the 1st respondent herein and in the absence of even any remote indication of their involvement in any acts of domestic violence against the 1st respondent herein, the further continuance of the proceedings in the domestic violence case against them will be a miscarriage of justice and the inherent powers of this Court should be invoked to discontinue the proceedings against them. 7. In so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, he is the husband of the 3rd petitioner, sister of the husband of the 1st respondent herein. Even concerning him, the references made to his involvement in the domestic violence case may not suggest his being a party to any acts of domestic violence against the 1st respondent herein or his being liable to any reliefs that may be granted on merits in favour of the 1st respondent herein. While general references were made throughout the domestic violence case to the conduct of all the respondents in making any demands or in threatening the 1st respondent herein, the ﬁrst speciﬁc allegation was that respondents 1 to 4 to the domestic violence case approached petitioners 4 and 5 herein for the demand to have the sale proceeds of the ﬂat. Even during the incident at the house of respondents 3 and 4 to the domestic violence case, the 2nd petitioner herein was not alleged to have indulged in any speciﬁc overt act of interacting with the 1st respondent herein and it was only an omnibus allegation of all the respondents trying to beat the petitioner or all the respondents cautioning the petitioner in the domestic violence case. Speciﬁc allegations were made only against the wife of the 2nd petitioner/3rd petitioner about a personal talk with the 1st respondent herein, while speciﬁc allegations were made about the continuance of misconduct by the 4th respondent to domestic violence case by making frequent phone calls etc. Even during the incident on 19-05-2007, the involvement of the 2nd petitioner herein was not alleged at all and so were the allegations about the subsequent incidents. The allegations of continuance of harassment and acts of domestic violence by respondents 1 to 4 were without any speciﬁcation of what the 2 nd petitioner herein has done and a close reading of all the allegations together will make it clear that it was the 3rd petitioner/sister of the husband that was alleged to have played a positive and active role in the acts of cruelty and harassment against the 1st respondent herein but not the 2nd petitioner herein who is the husband of the 3rd petitioner herein. The involvement of the 2nd petitioner herein on such vague, indeﬁnite, general and omnibus allegations of involvement of the respondents to domestic violence case in the acts of domestic violence will be a travesty of justice and though the proceedings in the domestic violence case are not criminal in character, there is absolutely no doubt that the launching and continuance of such proceedings against any person without any speciﬁc allegations against him will not be in the interests of justice. The 2nd petitioner being resident of Hyderabad is not in dispute, while the matrimonial life of the 1st respondent with her husband was never stated to be in any household in which the 2nd petitioner was living. Therefore, the involvement of the 2nd petitioner herein in the alleged acts of domestic violence appears to be not acceptable on the very allegations made in the case and in any view, he could not have been subjected to the reliefs of a protection order or a residence order or a compensation order or a maintenance order even if the allegations are accepted at face value and on such vague allegations he could not have been directed to execute any bond undertaking not to commit any domestic violence against the 1st respondent herein. As such, continuance of proceedings against the 2nd petitioner does not appear to be warranted on fact or in law. 8. However, coming to petitioners 1 and 3, their relationship with the husband of the 1st respondent herein, who is the 1st respondent in domestic violence case, as mother and sister is admitted and the mother, son and daughter-in-law living under the same roof at Kolkata is also not in dispute. Speciﬁc allegations were made during the description of the various incidents that form part of the cause of action for the 1st respondent to proceed about the positive involvement of the mother of her husband in various acts of physical and mental harassment for getting the sale proceeds of the ﬂat and other things. Similar were the allegations against the sister of the husband also who is 3rd petitioner herein. 9. Though it is true that the sister never shared the same household with the 1st respondent herein and her husband during the relevant period, living together in the shared household is not a must for being liable for any reliefs under the special Statute according to Sri O. Kailash Natha Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, while it is a must according to Sri Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the deﬁnition of domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act. The deﬁnition of domestic relationship, of course, requires living together in a shared household at some point of time, but the deﬁnition of domestic violence under Section 3 of the Act does not appear to have made the living together in a shared household to be a condition precedent for a person being impleaded as a respondent alleging any act of omission or commission or conduct to constitute domestic violence. Similarly, the deﬁnition of the word ‘respondent’ under Section 2(q) of the Act, of course, requires an adult male person to be living in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, while the proviso thereunder enabling an aggrieved person to make a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner does not appear to have any reference to the necessity of such relative of the husband also sharing the same household with the aggrieved person at any point of relevant time. As such, it does not appear, ex facie, that the domestic violence case has to straight away fail on the ground of the 3rd petitioner never sharing the same household with the 1st respondent herein and it is open to the 3rd petitioner to take any such defence before the learned trial Judge, who will decide such contention on merits in accordance with law. 10. The domestic violence case against petitioners 1 and 3, therefore, does not appear to be unsustainable on the face of it and could not have been the subject of exercise of any inherent powers to quash the proceedings at the inception without an enquiry into the merits of the allegations made. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the 1st respondent herein in the domestic violence case cannot be the subject of a fact ﬁnding enquiry by this Court in a restricted summary proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for the above reasons, the petition has to succeed in respect of petitioners 2, 4 and 5 and fail in respect of petitioners 1 and 3. 11. Sri Masthan Naidu, learned counsel requested on the ground of the age of the 1st petitioner and the residence at a distance in some other place of the 3rd petitioner and her being a house wife that their presence on future dates of hearing may be dispensed with. If petitioners 1 and 3 are so advised and so desire, they can make an appropriate request to the trial Court to dispense with their physical presence on all future dates of hearing except when their physical presence is absolutely necessary for further progress of the case and if such a request were to be made, the trial Court shall consider such request positively. 12. Subject to the above direction, the further proceedings in D.V.C. No.2 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam are quashed against petitioners 2, 4 and 5 herein and the criminal petition is allowed in respect of petitioners 2, 4 and 5 accordingly, while it is dismissed in respect of petitioners 1 and 3. None of the observations made in this order shall inﬂuence the trial Court in any manner in determining the domestic violence case on its own merits in accordance with law. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16-11-2011 Svv