IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4000 OF 2009 Between: K. Prasunna & 3 others … PETITIONERS And 1. B. Sandhya Rani 2. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.4000 OF 2009 Between: K. Rangaiah & another … PETITIONERS And 1. B. Sandhya Rani 2. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4000 OF 2009 & 5028 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. These two petitions are filed by the respondents 2 to 7 in D.V.C.No.2 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Allagadda. The complaint was filed by the first respondent in the lower Court against her husband who is the first respondent in D.V.C.No.2 of 2009 and his relations claiming reliefs of protection under Section 18, residence under Section 19, maintenance under Section 20 and compensation under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). 2. Insofar as the reliefs of residence and maintenance under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act are concerned, it is now well settled that those reliefs can be granted against the husband only and not against other family members of the husband. Insofar as relief of protection under Section 18 and compensation under Section 22 of the Act are concerned, such reliefs can be granted against not only the husband but also against relatives of the husband. Since the first respondent/complainant claimed all the reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act, it cannot be said that the petitioners are unnecessarily impleaded in the case in the lower Court. They are necessary parties to the case having regard to the reliefs claimed by the first respondent. 3. At the same time, their presence on every date of adjournment of the case in the lower Court is wholly unnecessary because all the reliefs claimed in the case are civil in nature. Simply because a domestic violence case is enquired by a criminal Court, they cannot be treated as criminal proceedings against the respondents. Therefore, insisting on presence of the petitioners herein who are the respondents 2 to 7 in the lower Court is liable to be dispensed with. 4. In the result, both the criminal petitions are dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed not to insist on presence of the petitioners who are the respondents 2 to 7 in D.V.C.No.2 of 2009 during enquiry of the case, except on the date of pronouncement of order therein. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 13, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4000 OF 2009 & 5028 OF 2009 August 13, 2010 KL