THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4734 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 5 who are the respondents 1 to 5 in D.V.C.No. 16 of 2009 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam seek quashing of proceedings therein on the ground that the said proceedings are sheer abuse of process of law. The 1st petitioner is husband of the 2nd respondent- complainant. The petitioners 2 and 3 are parents and the petitioners 4 and 5 are sisters of the 1st petitioner. It is contended that the petitioners 4 and 5 are residents of Hyderabad and they have nothing to do with this case and they were falsely implicated on bald allegations. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that at the time of marriage of the 2nd respondent with the 1st petitioner in the year 1999, she passed only 10th class and that after marriage, the 1st petitioner got her educated further by way of intermediate and Engineering courses and that thereafter, she was employed in A.P. Transco and that the 2nd respondent eloped with her boy friend and was leading adulterous life and that the 2nd respondent herself performed second marriage of the 1st petitioner with another girl on the ground that she was a barren woman and that since January 2008, the 2nd respondent was not living with the 1st petitioner and that the 2nd respondent with oblique motive filed the present domestic violence case as well as cases under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the 1st petitioner and others. All the above contentions put forward by the petitioners concerned are one relating to questions of fact, which, this Court cannot entertain and decide in this Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All those contentions are to be decided by the trial Court after enquiry of the domestic violence case in which both the parties will be allowed to lead oral and documentary evidence. It is contended that all the possible reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are being claimed in this Petition including one of maintenance even though she is working as Engineer in A.P. Transco. In domestic violence case proceedings, it has to be seen whether there is any domestic relationship between the complainant and the respondents therein. Having regard to the admitted relationship, it cannot be prima facie said that the petitioners herein have no domestic relationship with the 2nd respondent. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to interfere with enquiry in the case by the lower Court at its threshold. Hence, the Petition is dismissed. However, personal attendance of the petitioners 2 to 5 who are the respondents 2 to 5 in D.V.C.No. 16 of 2009 in the lower Court is dispensed with during enquiry of the case, except on the date of delivery of judgment, in case they are represented by an Advocate. ------------------------------------- (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 8th June 2010 ksld