IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4328 of 2010 Between: A. Ravi & 3 others .. Petitioners AND Smt. S. Sunitha & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4328 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.6 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, East Godavari District, against the petitioners. 2. The application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”) by the first respondent herein against the petitioners herein resulted in the Magistrate taking cognizance against all the four petitioners herein in respect of the reliefs claimed for a protection order under Section 18 of the Act, alternative accommodation under Section 19 of the Act, monetary reliefs under Section 20 of the Act and any other appropriate reliefs. The application, of course, is in the prescribed proforma without any detailed description of the events leading to the first respondent being compelled to approach the Magistrate for the reliefs, as per the copy furnished along with the criminal petition. 3. The petitioners claimed that the husband, the first petitioner, is a junior Advocate at Visakhapatnam, while petitioners 2 to 4 are the mother, married sister and husband of the sister of the first petitioner. The marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent performed as per Christian rites on 17.08.2008 was claimed to have been declared as null and void in F.C.O.P.No.102 of 2010 after the filing of a petition for judicial separation by the first respondent in O.P.No.567 of 2009. The petitioners claimed that the first respondent left the first petitioner within 20 days after the marriage and did not return but gave a report under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, resulting in Crime No.68 of 2009 of Tondangi Police Station, East Godavari District. The petitioners alleged the first respondent to be never interested in leading a matrimonial life and the domestic relationship required for prosecuting a domestic violence case was stated to be absent. The first respondent is stated to be a Secondary Grade Teacher who cannot claim any maintenance from her husband, a Junior Advocate without any earnings. As the marriage was null and void, she cannot even claim to be a former wife of the first petitioner and, therefore, none of the orders sought for in the domestic violence case will be available to the first respondent. Hence, the petitioners desired the further proceedings to be quashed. 4. Sri P. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the second respondent are heard and the first respondent, in spite of personal service of the notice of the petition by registered post, had not entered appearance by herself or through any counsel. 5. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the domestic violence case can be continued against the petitioners. 6. The material papers filed along with the criminal petition show that in O.P.No.567 of 2009, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, the first respondent herself alleged about being harassed for additional dowry by the petitioners 1 to 4. The first respondent also alleged to have been abused and beaten by the petitioners within the short period of nine days for which she stayed with her husband after the marriage. The further harassment during Dasara vacation did not involve the 4th petitioner herein even according to the first respondent and he was again stated to be involved in the visit by the petitioners to the parents house of the first respondent demanding additional dowry. The addresses of the petitioners given herein show that petitioners 3 and 4, the sister of the first petitioner and her husband, reside elsewhere at Visakhapatnam, while the first and second petitioners are living together in one house which is but natural. If so, the involvement of petitioners 3 and 4 in the domestic life of the first petitioner and the first respondent for no attributed reason does not appear natural. The orders in the other two criminal petitions between the parties before this Court in respect of C.C.No.284 of 2009 and Crime No.86 of 2009 show the parties to be approaching the police and the Courts with allegations and counter allegations about the events between them, the truth or otherwise of which cannot be the subject of an enquiry herein. The marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent was declared null and void as per the order and decree in O.P.No.102 of 2010, on the file of the Family Court, Visakahapatnam, dated 25.03.2010, and the involvement of petitioners 3 and 4 in any of the litigations cannot be equated to their involvement in the committal of any acts of domestic violence. At any rate, they cannot be subjected to any residence order or monetary reliefs claimed by the first respondent in the domestic violence case and when they never lived together with the first respondent in a shared household in a domestic relationship, the availability of a protection order also is highly doubtful. 7. While the continuance of the domestic violence case against petitioners 3 and 4 under such circumstances will be a travesty of justice, even regarding the second petitioner aged more than 50 years, her involvement as the mother of the first petitioner in the marital life of her son cannot be presumed to be with a view to break down her son’s marriage in the absence of any specific allegations. The mother harming the marital happiness of the son cannot be considered natural in the absence of any specific allegations and the domestic violence case did not make any allegation of any specific act of domestic violence against her so as to be subjected to a protection order, while she also could not have been subjected to the other reliefs claimed by the first respondent. 8. While petitioners 2 to 4 have to succeed to that extent, in so far as the first petitioner is concerned, notwithstanding the declaration of the marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent as null and void by the Family Court, the first respondent cannot be straight away construed to be outside the meaning of an aggrieved person as defined in Section 2 (a) of the Act, as any woman, who “has been” in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent can be an aggrieved person and as the marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent on 17.08.2008 and their leading marital life thereafter is admitted, the entitlement of the first respondent to the protection order or residence order or monetary reliefs against the first petitioner have to be determined on merits by the Magistrate after a full-fledged enquiry on the evidence to be placed before the Magistrate by the parties and cannot be the subject of exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at the inception. As the first petitioner can be a respondent within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Act as an adult male person who has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, notwithstanding the truth or otherwise of his other allegations, he cannot claim to be absolved from the proceedings even without an enquiry on merits. Without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions of the first petitioner and the first respondent in the domestic violence case, the proceedings against him, therefore, have to be permitted to be continued. 9. Sri P. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners requested that the first petitioner may be exempted from personal appearance as he is still at the inception of his practice at the bar, is unable to have any substantial earnings and will be burdened by the expenses to attend the Court at Srikakulam from Visakhapatham and inconvenience to his profession due to his absence from the place of practice on those dates. If it were so, the first petitioner can make an appropriate application to the trial Court to dispense with his presence on all future dates of hearing except when his physical presence is absolutely necessary for the further progress of the Case and in the event of such a request being made, the trial Court shall positively consider the same. 10. Subject to the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of the first petitioner and is allowed in respect of petitioners 2 to 4 and the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.6 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, East Godavari District, are quashed against petitioners 2 to 4. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 7th December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4328 of 2010 Date: 7th December, 2011 KL