THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6079 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. S.Nooka Raju, S/o.S.Pallababu & 2 others. … Petitioners AND 1. State of A.P rep. by Public Prosecutor & 2 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6079 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3 are the respondents 4, 7 and 8 in D.V.C.No.9 of 2009 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam filed by the respondents 2 and 3. The 3rd respondent herein is minor daughter of the 2nd respondent herein. The 1st petitioner is maternal uncle and the petitioners 2 and 3 are husbands of two sisters of the 2nd respondent’s husband. The respondents 2 and 3 filed D.V.C. in the lower Court against the 2nd respondent’s husband and his family members and relations claiming reliefs of protection under Section 18, return of money under Section 19, separate residence under Section 19, maintenance under Section 20, compensation under Section 22 of the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the petitioners are living separately from the husband of the 2nd respondent in their respective houses and pursuing their respective employments or avocations and that there is no domestic relationship as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Act. Existence of domestic relationship as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Act is not the only criterion to file a case by an aggrieved person under Section 12 of the Act. A case can be instituted against any person who fits in the definition of ‘respondent’ as defined in Section 2(q) of the Act. As per Section 2(q) of the Act, a respondent may be either a person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person; and as per the proviso therein, the wife or female can institute the complaint against a relative of the husband. The petitioners 1 to 3 being maternal uncle and brothers-in-law of the 2nd respondent’s husband, are entitled to be proceeded with a complaint under Section 12 of the Act. 3. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there are no allegations in the entire complaint specifically against the petitioners 1 to 3. In Para 16 of the complaint, it was specifically stated that the respondents 1 to 9 very often used to severely beat the petitioner besides abusing her in filthy language and thus are guilty of physical and mental cruelty. The respondents 2 and 3 herein are claiming compensation under Section 22 of the Act against of the respondents 1 to 9 including the petitioners 1 to 3 herein towards mental torture and harassment. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the complaint in D.V.C. pending in the lower Court is liable to be quashed insofar as the petitioners 1 to 3 are concerned. 4. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 04.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.6079 of 2009 DATED: 04.03.2011 ysk