THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4812 OF 2008 DATE: 25.03.2011 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Mallikarjun appearing for the petitioner and Sri Srinivasa Rao the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent’s counsel. Notice was ordered to first respondent in this petition before admission and after hearing both sides the matter has been taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.69 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial, Adilabad District. The petitioner herein is the first respondent in the said case. 3. The said Domestic Violence Case (for short ‘DVC’) has been filed on behalf of the first respondent herein by his paternal aunt under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘Act’) seeking a relief of protection order and an order for monetary relief and also other reliefs against the petitioner herein. Along with the DVC, Crl.M.P.No.430 of 2008 was also filed on behalf of the first respondent herein for certain interim reliefs. In the said Crl.M.P learned Magistrate on 9th May 2008 granted an interim protection order under Section 18(a) of the Act prohibiting the petitioner herein from committing any acts of domestic violence against the petitioner and his guardian and he further directed the Respondents 2 to 4 in the said petition not to release amounts belonging to the petitioner herein pending further orders. Respondents 2 to 4 are the concerned Manager of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, the Manager of the State Bank of Hyderabad branch Ramakrishnapur and the Commissioner of CMPF, Godavarikhani. The said amounts pertain to the service benefits of the petitioner herein. 4. The first respondent herein is admittedly the minor son of the petitioner and it is stated that he is the son of the petitioner through his first wife. Alleging that the petitioner took a second wife after the death of the first respondent’s mother and neglected him, the first respondent’s paternal aunt filed the DVC for the reliefs mentioned above acting as his guardian. 5. In this petition, Sri K. Mallikarjun, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have no application to males and consequently the proceedings before the learned Magistrate in the DVC and also in the Crl.M.P. therein are not maintainable and therefore they should be quashed. 6. It may be noted that Section 2(a) of the Act defines “aggrieved person” and it says that aggrieved person means a woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent. Even Section 2(b) of the Act which defines “child” says that a “child” means a person below the age of 18 years and includes any adopted, step or foster child. A perusal of Sections 12 and 20 of the Act which provide for grant of reliefs under the Act would show that reliefs can be granted to an aggrieved person who should be a woman and a child and that child should be again the child of the aggrieved person i.e. woman. In the present case a perusal of the petition filed in the DVC would show that the first respondent is represented by his paternal aunt as guardian and the averments in the petition do not show that the first respondent’s guardian pleaded that she is the aggrieved person though the petitioner herein happens to be her brother. Thus basing on these aspects, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the Act has no application to the first respondent cannot be said to be without force. When questioned about the applicability of the Act to the son of the petitioner herein, Sri Srinivas Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent’s counsel, has fairly stated that the Act has no application to the males. It may however be noted that even assuming for a moment that a child whether male or female can be granted relief under the Act such child prima facie should be the child of the aggrieved person who can be a woman in domestic relationship with the respondent. In the present case the paternal aunt of the first respondent who is acting as his guardian cannot be said to be the aggrieved person even going by the averments in the DVC though according to her she brought up the first respondent. However a larger question may arise as to how the case of a minor child under the Act should be dealt with whose mother or any other woman is not an aggrieved person. This question was not argued by both sides and hence the same is not gone into in view of the admission made by the counsel for the first respondent and also having regard to the fact that the first respondent herein has admittedly become a major now. 7. Thus in the above circumstances and having regard to the submission made by the first respondent’s counsel herein, it follows that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order by entertaining the DVC without considering the above plea of the petitioner’s counsel. Hence it can be said that the proceedings in the DVC and CrlMP should be quashed. The point is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and this criminal petition is allowed. 8. As the first respondent has now admittedly become a major it is open for him to pursue his remedies regarding his property rights or other rights available to him against his father i.e. the petitioner herein. It is made clear that this decision is not to be treated as a precedent laying down any proposition of law in view of the admission made by the first respondent’s counsel which is already referred to supra. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J Date:25.03.2011 SP/cvrk