HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2041 of 2010 Date 17.09.2010 Between: Dr.Pullapati Ravichandra and others …..Petitioners And: State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By the Public Prosecutor and others …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.2041 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 7 are the respondents 2 to 8 in D.V.C. No.3 of 2010 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Secunderabad. The 1st respondent in D.V.C who is husband of the 2nd respondent herein/aggrieved party is not figuring as petitioner in this criminal petition. The petitioners are parents, brothers, sisters, sister-in- law and maternal uncle of husband of the 2nd respondent. Having regard to the above relationship, it cannot be said that there is no domestic relationship between the 2nd respondent and the petitioners. Marriage of the 2nd respondent with her husband is not in dispute. Both of them are stated to be residing separately. In the domestic violence case, the 2nd respondent is claiming reliefs of protection under Section 18, residence under Section 19, monetary relief by way of maintenance under Section 20, prevention from loss of custody of her minor child under Section 21 and compensation under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent/aggrieved party filed maintenance case also before the Magistrate apart from this domestic violence case. The petitioners’ counsel could not point out any legal bar for maintaining a maintenance case simultaneously along with domestic violence case. No doubt, order of residence under Section 19 and order of maintenance under Section 20 of the Act can be granted only as against the husband and not against other relations of the husband. At this stage, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings in the domestic violence case pending before the lower Court. At the same time since the reliefs claimed under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act are purely civil nature, though they are tried and granted by the criminal Court applying Code of Criminal Procedure, they cannot be equated with criminal proceedings as such. In that view of the matter, presence of all the petitioners herein who are the respondents in the domestic violence case may not be necessary on each and every date of adjournment because their identities are known to each other. 2) In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispense with presence of the petitioners 1 to 7 herein who are the respondents 2 to 8 in D.V.C.No.3 of 2010 on all dates of enquiry of the case before the lower Court, except on the day of delivery of the order therein. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. Dt.17.09.2010 ksh