THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7320 of 2009 Date: 24th March, 2011 Between: Busa Gangamani and 3 others … Petitioners A n d The State, through SHO PS Armoor, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7320 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 4 are mother, two sisters and brother of the 2nd respondent’s deceased husband. Previously, at the instance of the 2nd respondent, case was booked against the petitioners 1 to 4 and her deceased husband for offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C etc., and it is stated to be pending. It is stated that humiliated by the action of the 2nd respondent, her husband committed suicide. Now the 2nd respondent filed DVC No.7 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Armoor, Nizamabad District, against the petitioners 1 to 4 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from them for the alleged domestic violence caused by them against the 2nd respondent. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that after marriage of the 2nd respondent with her husband, they began living separately and that the 2nd respondent never lived along with the petitioners and that therefore, there is no question of any domestic violence committed by the petitioners against the 2nd respondent. Whether the allegation of commission of domestic violence is true or not is a matter to be decided by the trial Court on the evidence to be let in by both the parties; and this Court cannot decide that question in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it is a question of fact. It is contended that the 2nd respondent resorted to several proceedings against the petitioners with a view to harass them. In view of the relief of compensation claimed by the 2nd respondent against all the petitioners under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it cannot be said that any of petitioners is not a necessary party to the petition. 2. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, since the petitioners 1 and 4 are ladies, the lower Court is directed to dispense with their presence in the case during enquiry of DVC except on the date of delivery of judgment therein. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 24th March, 2011 KSM