THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.6123 AND 6516 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Both the Criminal Petitions are directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad, Karimnagar District, in which the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6123 of 2010 is the first respondent and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6516 of 2010 is the second respondent. 2. The factual background for the dispute is that the second respondent, in both the criminal petitions, for herself, and her minor son, and daughter, as mother and natural guardian, filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging that the whereabouts of her husband Kashiram were unknown since 09.02.2007 and the husband himself was harassing the second respondent herein for additional dowry though cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and motor cycle worth Rs.50,000/- were presented at the time of marriage. The second respondent was blessed with a son and a daughter, the petitioners 2 and 3 in D.V.C. during the course of wedlock. The parents of the second respondent were claimed to have given additional dowry of a total of Rs.50,000/- and after the husband left on 09.02.2007, the petitioners herein were alleged to have subjected the second respondent herein to physical and mental cruelty to compel her to leave the house. A Panchayat, convened by the parents of the second respondent, was stated to be in vain and the requests of the parents of the second respondent, relatives and well-wishers were also stated to be in vain. The second respondent contended that the ancestral land and houses were not partitioned and the parents-in-law have Ac 16.00 of agricultural land with an annual income of Rs.4,00,000/- and two houses. The petitioners herein were claimed to have neglected to maintain respondent Nos.2 to 4 in spite of having capacity and obligation to maintain them. The parents of the second respondent were stated to be old and unable to maintain the respondents 2 to 4 herein and expecting danger to their life in the hands of petitioners herein, Respondents 2 to 4 sought for protection, monetary relief of Rs.3,000/- per month each for maintenance and compensation of Rs.60,000/- from the petitioners. 3. The petitioners contended that after the marriage, the second respondent lived with her in-laws only for a period of three months and thereafter lived separately with her husband for a period of six months in Venkatraopally, after which she shifted to her mothers place at Sultanabad along with her husband since 2001. When she lodged a complaint to the police in Crime No.26 of 2007 of Sultanabad Police Station about her husband missing from 09.02.2007 from the house of her parents, the father of the second respondent’s husband entertained a doubt and approached the High Court in W.P.No.8688 of 2008. The High Court directed the officials concerned to intensify the search for the missing person. It was thereafter that the second respondent filed the D.V.C. to escape the investigation by the police and as a counterblast. The lands of the family were partitioned in 1995 itself to which effect entries were made in the Record of Rights and the first respondent to the D.V.C. is an old woman of 75 years with no source of income to eke out her livelihood. The second respondent is a divided brother, who constructed a house in the name of his wife in 1996 after partition, under Indiramma Scheme. The second respondent was stated to be working as a Nurse, earning Rs.5,000/- per month, in Laxman Orthopaedic Hospital, Karimnagar and hence, the petitioners desired the proceedings to be quashed. 4. Heard Sri A.Krupadhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Rama Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri V.Hariharan, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/ the first respondent. 5. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in D.V.C. No.1 of 2010 against the petitioners are liable to be terminated. 6. The report given by the second respondent to the Sub- Inspector of Police, Sultanabad on 16.02.2007, copies of which were filed by the petitioners, specified that while the second respondent was married to Kashiram seven years earlier, he and second respondent were living at the house of the mother of the second respondent at Sultanabad since two years earlier. The complaint was about Kashiram missing from the house from 09.2.2007. The copy of the order in W.P.No.8688 of 2008, dated 17.06.2008 shows that the father of Kashiram filed a Habeas Corpus Petition, suspecting the mother and sister’s husband of the second respondent to have killed Kashiram. Kashiram was stated to have been found during the investigation by the Police to be having cordial relationship with every one and to be living with his wife and children at his parents-in-law’s house. The order in the Writ Petition does not indicate any disputes or discord in the family between any members of the family to be a reason for missing of Kashiram. 7. While the petitioners herein could not have been made answerable for any demands by the missing husband, for additional dowry or any consequential harassment, the petition by the second respondent for herself and her two minor children did not indicate as to when, after missing of her husband since 09.02.2007, the mother-in- law or the brother-in-law would have had an opportunity to treat the second respondent with physical and mental cruelty or how they could have resorted to such cruelty to make her leave their house when there was no allegation about respondents 2 to 4 herein returning to the house of her husband’s parents. The alleged panchayat convened by the parents of the second respondent was devoid of any details about the date or place of such panchayat or the names or identity of panchayatdars. What was the result of the panchayat was also not stated and if the respondents 2 to 4 were living with the family of the second respondent’s mother at Sultanabad, without any allegation or proof of their return to the house of either petitioner, any scope for either petitioner committing any acts of domestic violence against the respondents 2 to 4 herein does not arise. The petitioners herein could not have been claimed to be living in domestic relationship in a shared household with the respondents 2 to 4 herein to make them susceptible to any reliefs under the special statute. Even if the second respondent and her husband were with the parents of the second respondent’s husband at any time prior to the shift of the second respondent and her husband to the second respondent’s mother’s house, the same could not have justifiably provided, any cause of action under the special statute, as there were no allegations of any marital disputes or domestic violence prior to the same or during the stay of second respondent in her mother’s house along with the husband and children. 8. The allegation that the parents of second respondent’s husband have Ac. 16.00 of agricultural land and two houses by itself will not indicate any right for respondents 2 to 4 against such properties in the absence of any indication of nature of ownership of the properties with the parents of the second respondent’s husband. At any rate, the parties being admittedly Hindus, their personal law does not obligate the mother-in-law or the brother-in-law to maintain the respondents 2 to 4. If they never lived together in a shared house in the domestic relationship, passing of any protection orders may not arise and even for economic abuse, which has been made a part of domestic violence as defined in Section 3 of the Act, the relief consequentially to be granted by way of maintenance could not have been against the mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Both the mother-in-law and brother- in-law claimed that there was a family partition in 1995 itself and the brother-in-law claimed to be living since 1996 in the house constructed in the name of his wife under Indiramma Scheme. The mother-in-law, aged about 70 to 75 years, claimed to have no means to maintain even herself and under the circumstances it is, ex facie doubtful for the respondents 2 to 4 to have been entitled to any relief under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the petitioners. No compensation can also be claimed, if there was no responsibility for either petitioner in causing any domestic violence against the respondents 2 to 4 and the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010 being continued against the petitioners will be a travesty of justice under such circumstances. 9. However, no part of this order shall be considered as an expression of opinion about the extent of properties said to be owned by the parents of the husband or their nature or any rights for the respondents 2 to 4 against such properties, if the respondents 2 to 4 pursue their civil rights against such properties in any legal proceedings to which they are entitled to. No observation in this order shall be used against them in such proceedings. 10. Subject to the above observation, the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the further proceedings against the petitioners in both the Criminal Petitions in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad, are quashed. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 23, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.6123 AND 6516 OF 2010 Between in Crl.P.No.6123 of 2010: Nakka Laxmi ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. rep.by P.P. and others. ...RESPONDENTS Between in Crl.P.No.6516 of 2010: Nakka Janardhan ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. rep.by P.P. and others. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.6123 AND 6516 OF 2010 23.11.2011 YVL