HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.6340 OF 2010 Dt.2.11.2010 Between: Shaik Uddandu and others ..Petitioners And Shaik Saibee and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.6340 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Petitioners herein seek to quash DVC No.6 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum- Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid. They are respondents 2 to 9 in the said DVC No.6 of 2010. The 1st respondent in the DVC is not made even a formal party to this criminal petition showing him as a respondent. The 1st respondent in the said DVC No.6 of 2010 is the husband of the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent herein filed the said DVC against petitioners herein and her husband under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter for short referred to as ‘the Act’). The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the said DVC. The 1st respondent is the husband of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is the wife of the 2nd respondent and respondents 4, 6 and 8 are younger sisters of the husband of the petitioner. 5th respondent is the son of 4th respondent and 7th respondent is the son of sixth respondent and 9th respondent is the husband of 8th respondent. It is stated that the marriage of the petitioner with the 1st respondent was an arranged marriage and the same was performed as per rites and customs prevailed in Muslim religion on 23.5.2004 at the house of the parents of the petitioner at Penumaka Village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District. At the time of marriage, respondents 1 to 4, 6, 8 and 9 demanded the parents of the petitioner to give dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and her parents expressed their inability to give such huge amount as dowry as demanded. But, the parents of the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- only and the respondents have demanded to pay half of the said amount at the time of the marriage and the remaining amount was given within two years thereafter. After the marriage, the petitioner joined the 1st respondent at his joint family house at Veeravalli with domestic articles and other utensils worth of Rs.20,000/-. Six months after the marriage, except respondents 5 and 7, all other respondents used to demand the petitioner to bring the balance amount of dowry from her parents. Respondents 4 and 5 are also residing with them in the joint family house. Out of the wedlock, the petitioner blessed with two children i.e., daughter Hanisha aged about 5 years and milk-suckling boy Khadeer Hussain aged about 1 ½ years. While, so, the petitioner joined in DWACRA group with the intimacy of Dokku Yesodha wife of Naga Raju and taking advantage of the said intimacy they made her to invest some additional amount to the DWACRA loan amount as her share to began a cloth shop business and took her gold ornaments weighing 6 ½ sovereign on 24.5.2010 when her husband was not at home and they have pledged the said gold ornaments. Petitioner did not inform the same to her husband. When the 1st respondent questioned about the said ornaments, due to fear she suppressed the said fact of giving the gold ornaments to the DWACRA group people and told him that the said ornaments were left in her parent’s house. She was making all attempts to recover the said gold ornaments. When she left the house to secure the gold ornaments at the instance of the DWACRA group people with good intention, all the respondents quarreled and beat her and they have forcibly snatched the suckling boy. It is further stated that the attempts made by the elders to settle the matter was of no consequence and except respondents 5 and 7 all other respondents have demanded the balance dowry of Rs.50,000/- and the gold ornaments taken away by the said Nagaraju and his wife or else they would keep the children of the petitioner with them. Therefore, the petitioner filed the said petition claiming relief under Sections 18 and 22 of the Act seeking interim orders directing the respondents to produce her daughter – Shaik Haneesh aged 5 years and suckling boy – Khadeer Hussain aged 1 ½ years and hand over to her from the custody of the respondents and to award costs. Pursuant to the said application, the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid, passed orders on 18.6.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.967 of 2010 in DVC No.6 of 2010 directing respondents 1 to 9 to produce Shaik Hanisha, aged about 5 years and suckling boy Khadeer Hussain, aged about 1 ½ years before the court on 21.6.2010 and show cause why the above children should not be given to the custody of the petitioner. Without producing the said minor children of the petitioner, the petitioners herein, who are respondents 2 to 9 in the said DVC filed this criminal petition and this Court by order dated 7.7.2010 granted interim stay of all further proceedings for a period of four weeks which was extended from time to time. The 1st respondent in the criminal petition filed counter seeking to vacate the said interim order. It appears that there are some disputes among the husband and wife and the husband and wife filed criminal complaints against each other. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid, passed the aforesaid orders in favour of the petitioner for handing over the custody of the children. But, however, the said order is not implemented as she has already filed Crl.M.P.No.1093 of 2010 before the court below seeking to enforce the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.967 of 2010 by directing the Protection Officer to assist the court for enforcing the said orders. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid, by order, dated 16.9.2010, directed the Protection Officer-cum-Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency, Vijayawada, to receive the children of the petitioner from the custody of the respondent with the assistance of S.H.O of Veeravalli Police Station and hand over the children to the petitioner on or before 20.9.2010 and file report to that effect. The S.H.O., Veeravalli P.S. is also directed to assist the Protection Officer-cum-Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency, Vijayawada, in enforcing the directions given to the Protection Officer. It is stated that the said orders could not be implemented in view of the interim orders passed by this Court granting stay of all further proceedings. It is contended by the petitioners counsel that no specific overt acts were attributed to any of respondents 2 to 9 in DVC No.6 of 2010. On perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner in DVC No.6 of 2010, it is evident that on instructions of the 9th respondent, the petitioner’s husband (1st respondent), her sister-in-laws (respondents 4, 6 and 8) forcibly snatched away her suckling boy from her. The 5th respondent is the son of 4th respondent and 7th respondent is the son of 6th respondent and all of them are residing in one joint family house. Therefore, it cannot be said that no specific overt acts were attributed to respondents 2 to 9. It is for them to approach the court below to file counter in DVC No.6 of 2010 and to agitate the matter before the court below. The violence that is likely to be taken against the petitioner should be taken into consideration by the court below while granting relief in DVC No.6 of 2010. Therefore, we do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in DVC No.6 of 2010 or interfere with the orders passed by the court below regarding custody of the children. The interim order granted by this Court stands vacated. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. 2.11.2010 Note: Issue copy within three days B.O. kpr