HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6305 OF 2009 Dated 8-10-2010 Between: K.Srinivasa Rao and others. …Petitioners. And: K.Deepthi and another. …Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6305 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 4 are father-in-law, mother-in-law and two brothers-in-law of the 1st respondent. Husband of the 1st respondent is no more. 2. The 1st respondent filed D.V.C.No.9 of 2009 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioners 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.522 of 2009 against the 1st respondent for partition and other reliefs in respect of property left by their deceased son who is the deceased husband of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent representing herself and her minor-son filed O.S.No.216 of 2009 against the petitioners for partition of properties left by her husband. Both the suits are pending on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Interim order was passed by the Chief Judge directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the properties which are in their respective possession. The petitioners’ counsel contends that by virtue of the said status quo order, the 1st respondent is continuing in possession of the house property in which she is presently residing. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that having regard to the civil suits pending between the parties and having regard to the fact that the 1st respondent is residing in the residential flat left by her husband, again resorting to domestic violence case against the in-laws is nothing but abuse of process of law. The 1st respondent claimed all the reliefs of protection under Section 18, residence under Section 19, monetary relief/maintenance under Section 20 as well as compensation under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short “the Act”) against the petitioners. This Court is of the opinion that the scope of a petition under Section 12 of the Act is entirely different from the pending civil suits between the parties and also is over and above the reliefs claimed therein. A Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act can grant reliefs even over and above the reliefs granted by the Civil Court as well as the Criminal Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that filing of Domestic Violence case amounts to abuse of process of law. No doubt, all the reliefs under Sections 18 to 20 and 22 of the Act claimed in the Domestic Violence case by the 1st respondent are civil in nature. But they are tried by a Magistrate applying the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd petitioner is almost crippled with ill health and that the 1st petitioner is aged and that the petitioners 3 and 4 are only brothers of the 1st respondent’s husband and that they are being harassed. In view of the scope of the Act, it cannot be said that filing of Domestic Violence Case amounts to harassment of the petitioners. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispense with presence of the petitioners 1 to 3 herein who are the respondents 1 to 3 in D.V.C.No.9 of 2009 during enquiry of the case, except on the date of delivery of order therein. __________________________________________ Justice SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dated 8-10-2010. Dvs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6305 of 2009 Dated 8-10-2010