THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1981 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is directed against the further proceedings against the petitioners in D.V.C.No. 3 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ponnur. The Domestic Violence Case had been instituted by the 2nd respondent herein through her application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’), to the Magistrate. It was alleged by her that the petitioners searched for an alliance for their son representing that he was working as a Teacher in a private school after graduation and persuaded the 2nd respondent’s family for her being given in marriage to the son of the petitioners, so that the couple can work in the same school. After betrothal and marriage, the 2nd petitioner was alleged to have subjected the 2nd respondent to all sorts of cruelty and harassment in the manner stated in detail in the Petition. The 2nd petitioner was alleged to be instigated by her daughter and the 1st petitioner was claimed to be a silent spectator. The husband of the 2nd respondent was found to be not a sane, sound and prudent person and the 2nd respondent alleged that she became pregnant during the course of her marital life and delivered a female child at her parents’ house. She was initially refused to be taken back but after she went to her parents- in-law’s house, she was again harassed by the 2nd petitioner, who did not even allow the 2nd respondent to feed her female baby. The 2nd respondent further alleged that she returned to her parents’ house at Ponnur and the petitioners have secreted the call letter issued to her for the pandit’s training in Urdu. The petitioners were also alleged to have kept back her original certificates disabling her from producing them before the authorities on which she did not succeed in getting a seat. The 2nd respondent further alleged that fraud was played by the petitioners in getting her marriage to their son and hence, she sought for monetary reliefs against both the petitioners under Sections 20 and 22 of the special statute including for food, clothes, medication and other basic necessities at Rs.10,000/- per month, compensation for loss and injury physically and mentally at Rs.50,000/- and compensation under Section 22 of the Act at Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioners claim herein that the domestic violence case is not maintainable against the 2nd petitioner, as the word “respondent” has been defined in the special statute only to include an ‘adult male person’. The petitioners also contended that the allegations made against them were omnibus in nature and without any substantive proof. It was the 2nd respondent who left her husband in March 2008 along with the jewellery gifted by the petitioners and she did not return till December 2009 in spite of several efforts. The husband of the 2nd respondent issued a legal notice for restitution of conjugal life and the 2nd respondent filed this case as a counter blast. The petitioners further claim that not one specific instance was shown as to when, where and in what manner, she was harassed by the petitioners and the 1st petitioner was out of the country, for the purpose of religious preaching for a period of four months in a year. The petitioners therefore, desired the further proceedings in the domestic violence case to be quashed. At the time of issuing notice before admission, a learned Judge of this Court stayed further proceedings only in respect of the 1st petitioner, but not against the 2nd petitioner. Heard Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/Respondent No.1. The point for consideration is whether the domestic violence case is liable to be discontinued against the petitioners herein. Out of the reliefs provided by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, under Sections 18 to 22, the relief sought for by the 2nd respondent herein is only under Sections 20 and 22 and not under the other provisions. The primary basis for her claim for such monetary relief appears from the allegations in the Domestic Violence Case to be based on the alleged misleading of the 2nd respondent by the petitioners about the qualification and avocation of their son and the 2nd respondent finding after marriage her husband to be not a sane, sound and prudent person. The claim is also based on the alleged withholding of the call letter for pandit’s training in Urdu and the original certificates of qualification of the 2nd respondent by the petitioners resulting in her being deprived of pursuing such a course. The 2nd respondent specifically claimed that she lost her seat and suffered financially due to non-production of her original certificates and she further claimed to have suffered a lot due to her husband being not a sane, sound and prudent person. It was more in the nature of compensation or damages that the monetary reliefs appear to have been claimed and for claiming such a monetary relief, ‘respondent’ was defined by Section 2(q) of the Act to mean any adult male person. Though the definition itself did not include a female, a Division Bench of this Court in Afzal Unnisa Begum v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], held that the Act does not exclude a woman in a proceeding initiated under the Act and the word ‘respondent’ includes a female relative of the husband, depending upon the nature of the relief against the respondent in a Domestic Violence Case. Therefore, depending upon the nature of the relief, the maintainability of the domestic violence case against the mother-in-law also cannot be straight away negatived summarily. It is true that in various allegations of physical harassment made by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was assigned more or less the role of a silent spectator or a passive observer and not an active participant, but the reliefs claimed being not necessarily the consequences of any such physical domestic violence, the same may not enure to the benefit of the 1st petitioner for his answerability to the claims made by the 2nd respondent in this case. It will not be in the interests of justice for this Court to express any opinion on the truth or otherwise of the allegations or the susceptibility of the petitioners to any monetary reliefs at the instance of the 2nd respondent though the forceful arguments of Sri Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard deserve due weight at the time of determination of the domestic violence case on merits in accordance with law by the trial Court. However, the petitioners appear to be aged about 58 and 48 years respectively by the time of the filing of the petition, two years back, according to the cause title and Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that with the sufferings naturally carried by persons of that age, the petitioners are finding it physically and mentally burdensome to attend on all future dates of hearing and at least they may be permitted to be represented by their counsel in future proceedings of this case. The request of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be reasonable and hence, if the petitioners so desire and are so advised, they can make an appropriate request to the trial Court to dispense with their physical presence on all future dates of hearing, except when such physical presence is indispensable for the further progress of the case and if such a request were to be made, the trial Court shall positively consider the same. Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to my notice that the 2nd respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.30,00,000/- as damages from her parents-in-law on identical allegations which is also pending and that she has also filed a criminal case under Section 498-A I.P.C. and is thus harassing her parents-in-law, in all possible manner without any justification. The allegations of harassment without any excuse are denied by Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. But, it is not for this Court to make any probe into such issues when Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 36 thereof made it clear that the special statute is an additional tool and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force and any relief available under Sections 18 to 22 can also be sought for before a civil, criminal or family Court if the aggrieved person is entitled to do so in proceedings under the respective provisions. The only obligation cast on the aggrieved person proceeding under this Act is to inform the Court trying the Domestic Violence Case about any proceedings or orders passed pending such parallel proceedings. Therefore, any difficulty caused to the petitioners by multiplicity of proceedings cannot be a matter of relief from this Court on that ground. However, the trial Court can be and is requested to dispose of the criminal petition on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties, as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above observations about physical presence of the petitioners and expeditious disposal of the case, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. No costs. -------------------------------- (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 2nd November 2011 ksld [1] 2009(2) ALT (Crl.) 204 (DB)(AP)