HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6287 OF 2009 Dated 8-10-2010 Between: Himathsingh and others. …Petitioners. And: The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6287 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3 are the respondents 2 to 4 in D.V.C.No.16 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nizamabad filed by the respondents 2 and 3. 2. The 1st respondent in D.V.C.No.16 of 2009 is not figuring as one of the petitioners herein, he being husband of the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent is minor son of the 2nd respondent. The respondents 2 and 3 filed the case in the Lower Court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short “the Act”) for the reliefs of the protection under Section 18, residence under Section 19, maintenance/monitory relief under Section 20 and compensation under Section 22 of the Act. The petitioners 1 and 2 are brothers of the 2nd respondent’s husband. The 3rd petitioner is wife of the 1st petitioner. Having regard to the above relationship among the parties, it cannot be said that there is no domestic relationship between the 2nd respondent and the petitioners 1 to 3 as contemplated under the Act. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the petitioners 1 to 3 are living separately from the 2nd respondent’s husband and that the 2nd respondent also filed a case under Section 498-A I.P.C. not only against her husband, but also several others including the petitioners 1 to 3 herein and that after investigation, the police filed Charge Sheet against all the others excluding the petitioners 1 to 3 herein and that therefore filing of the Domestic Violence Case by the respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. Mere omission of the police to file the case under Section 498 A I.P.C. against the petitioners 1 to 3 is no ground for contending that there is no domestic violence on the part of the petitioners 1 to 3 towards the 2nd respondent. Domestic violence contemplated under Section 3 of the Act is entirely different from cruelty as contemplated under Section 498 A I.P.C. Reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act framed by the respondents 2 and 3 in the domestic violence case are totally civil in nature and they are not penal reliefs, though the case is tried by a Magistrate applying the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having regard to the reliefs claimed by respondents 2 and 3, it cannot be said that the petitioners 1 to 3 are not necessary parties to the Domestic Violence Case. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. But, however, the lower Court is directed to dispense with presence of the petitioners 1 to 3 who are the respondents 2 to 4 in D.V.C.No.16 of 2009 during enquiry of the case, except on the date of delivery of order therein. The lower Court will dispose of the case on merits, without reference to any observations made in this order. __________________________________________ Justice SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dated 8-10-2010. Dvs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6287 OF 2009 Dated 8-10-2010