THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2981 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 4 are the respondents 1 and 3 to 5 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2009 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sirpur, Adilabad District. The first petitioner is husband of the first respondent. The second petitioner is mother, the third petitioner is sister and the fourth petitioner is brother of the first petitioner. Having regard to close relationship among the petitioners 1 to 4 it cannot be said that there is no domestic relationship for the petitioners with the first respondent. There is no dispute that the first respondent delivered the second respondent after consummation of her marriage with the first petitioner. There is also no dispute that since prior to the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (in short, the Act) came into force on 26.10.2006, both the parties are living separately. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the respondents 1 and 2 cannot invoke the Act as against the petitioners. It is not correct. Even though there is separation between the first petitioner and the first respondent prior to the Act coming into force, economic abuse as contemplated under section 3 (iv) of the Act resulting in domestic violence continued even after the Act coming into force. Therefore, the first respondent is entitled to invoke provisions of the Act in this case. It is stated that after filing of this case, the first petitioner’s father died due to mental agony. The petitioners are residents of Nizamabad. The case is pending in Sirpur of Adilabad District, which is at a very long distance from Nizamabad. Reliefs claimed in this case are purely civil in nature, even though they are tried by criminal Court applying the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the circumstances, presence of the petitioners 2 to 4 may not be necessary on every date of adjournment during enquiry of the petition in the lower Court. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispense with presence of the petitioners 2 to 4 who are the respondents 3 to 5 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2009 during enquiry of the case in the lower Court , except on the date of pronouncing the order therein. ___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 24th September, 2010 bud