THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5771 of 2009 BETWEEEN: Sunkara Narayana Rao, S/o. Late Sanyasi … Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Sunkara Anantha Lakshmi, W/o.S.Narayana Rao & 2 others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5771 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is husband of 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 filed D.V.C.No.3 of 2008 against the petitioner in the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). The petitioner is seeking quashing of the proceedings in D.V.C.No.3 of 2008 by invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the respondents 1 and 2 did not disclose grant of maintenance by the Magistrate and that it is mandatory on their part to disclose the same under Section 26(3) of the Act. Now the petitioner appeared before the lower Court and filed counter in which he disclosed existence of an order of the Magistrate granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, as the matter now stands, failure to disclose the previous maintenance order becomes only academic and is not going to the root of the matter. Under Section 20(1)(d) of the Act, the Court may award monetary relief by way of maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, now the lower Court will consider whether the respondents 1 and 2 herein are entitled for any maintenance over and above the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that on 10.10.2008, the Family Court, Visakhapatnam granted divorce between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. It is further stated that appeal is pending in the High Court as against the decree for divorce. Even though there may be decree for divorce between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, which decree has not become final, still relationship of father and child continues between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Further, Section 2(a) of the Act defines an aggrieved person as a woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent. In this case, not only the 1st respondent but also the 2nd respondent is a woman and both of them have got domestic relationship with the petitioner. Therefore, decree of divorce between the petitioner and the 1st respondent has no relevance in this case. 3. It is contended that the alleged incident which was narrated as on 29.02.2008 in the precincts of the Family Court, Visakhaptnam, cannot be termed as verbal abuse or emotional abuse as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. Insult need not necessarily be in relation to lack of a child or lack of a male child. Even, a mere insult of the aggrieved person becomes verbal abuse and emotional abuse under the Act. It is alleged that on 29.02.2008, the petitioner herein while coming out of the Court, abused the respondents herein in fowl and filthy language in the presence of public, advocates and others and insulted the 1st respondent in a public place and threatened to see her end. If the said allegation is true, then it squarely attracts verbal abuse and emotional abuse under Section 3 of the Act. It is for the Magistrate to go into the evidence to be let in by both the parties and come to a conclusion on truth or otherwise of the allegations in the Domestic Violence Case and entitlement of any of the reliefs by the respondents 1 and 2 herein. There are no grounds in law for quashing proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case. 4. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 03.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5771 of 2009 DATED: 03.03.2011 ysk