HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1307 OF 2010 Date: 12.04.2010 Between: Yeasetti Ammani ……Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by its PP and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1307 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the 2nd respondent in D.V.C.No.24 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam filed by the 2nd respondent/victim. The petitioner is seeking quashing of proceedings in D.V.C.No.24 of 2009 in this petition. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is only a cook employed by husband of the victim herein. It is also contended that since the victim/2nd respondent left her husband, the petitioner was employed to look after children who were with husband of the victim. But, as per allegations in report given by the victim/2nd respondent to the Protection Officer, the petitioner is described as kept-mistress of her husband. It is alleged that by keeping the petitioner in their house itself, the husband as well as the petitioner were harassing the victim and that they were not allowing the victim to see her children also. It is further stated in the report that when the victim gave information to the police, the husband appeared before the police and undertook to discard the petitioner. Since the victim/2nd respondent was driven out of the house, she had to approach the Magistrate Court through the Protection Officer. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is no domestic relationship for the 2nd respondent with the petitioner, as defined in Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). Section 2(f) of the Act reads as follows: “Domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.” In order to attract domestic relationship, two persons need not be related only through marriage or consanguinity; and it is sufficient if those persons are having relationship “in the nature of” marriage. Thus, when the petitioner is alleged to be living with husband of the 2nd respondent as ‘mistress’ and leading family life in the family house, certainly such a person attracts domestic relationship, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Act. Apart from maintenance, alimony, etc., the 2nd respondent is also praying the Court for compensation for mental agony and physical torture and other reliefs. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not liable for any of the reliefs claimed by the 2nd respondent in the Domestic Violence Case pending before the Magistrate. Having regard to peculiar circumstances of this case, the petitioner is a necessary party to the Domestic Violence Case and the 2nd respondent is entitled for certain reliefs as against the petitioner also in case proof of allegations are made against her. Therefore, I do not find any valid reasons to quash proceedings in the pending case before the lower court. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:12.04.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1307 OF 2010 Date: 12.04.2010 Gk.