THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4170 of 2009 Date: 09.11.2011 Between: Harry Pascal and others. ..... Petitioner. AND Tarcisia and the State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....Respondent/Complainant. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4170 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are the father-in-law of the 1st respondent and the two sons of the father-in-law of the 1st respondent. The husband of the 1st respondent by name Vincent Pascal is another son of the 1st petitioner. The 1st respondent laid a case under Sections 18 & 19 of the Domestic Violence Act before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Rangareddy District seeking for protection and order of residence. The petitioners contend that the 1st respondent is not entitled to the reliefs of protection and residence. 2. Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petition is not maintainable as admittedly Vincent, husband of the 1st respondent owned the house and not the petitioners herein. He contended that the petition for order of residence of the 1st respondent becomes infructuous where the house in which the 1st respondent seeks shelter does not belongs to the petitioners. 3. In her detailed and exhaustive report to the Project Manager, Woman & Child Welfare Agency, Hyderabad dated 23-12-2008, the 1st respondent made it clear that the house property belonged to her husband Vincent. When her husband is the owner of the property, I am afraid that the petitioners 1 to 3 have nothing to do in relation to the order of the residence of the 1st respondent in her matrimonial home. The DVC is therefore liable to be rejected with reference to the order of residence. 4. The 1st respondent made exhaustive and detailed allegations and attributed overt acts against the petitioners. The complaint, as already pointed out was lodged towards the end of 2008. 5. While so, admittedly, the 1st respondent has been staying with her parents since 2007 according to her own claim. Added to it, the husband of the 1st respondent is away in Soudi Arabia. The question of the petitioners harassing the 1st respondent who has not been staying in the matrimonial home does not arise. In that view of the matter, the DVC is not sustainable. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that the 1st respondent earlier filed a case under Section 498A IPC and subsequently compounded the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that as petitioners 2 & 3 are residents of Adilabad and Boiguda respectively, prima facie the case under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act do not apply. 7. It may be noticed that the 1st respondent used to reside at Alwal, in Vijaya Durga Colony according to her stand. It cannot be said that the petitioners 2 & 3 were not coming over to the Colony to harass the 1st respondent. However, at the same time, there is no question of the petitioners harassing the 1st respondent when it is the case of the 1st respondent that she has been staying away from her matrimonial home. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon S.R. BATRA Vs. TARUNA BATRA[1]. The Supreme Court observed in that case that a wife could seek directions against the husband and not against the relatives of the husband in respect of alternative accommodation. Where admittedly Vincent, husband of the 1st respondent is not a party to the case under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, the very case would not be maintainable. 9. Viewed from any angle, the 1st respondent failed to make out the provisions under Sections 18 & 19 of the Domestic Violence Act for an appropriate order. I, therefore, consider that the very entertainment of the petition by the trial Court is not sustainable. The D.V.No.8 of 2009 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal therefore is not maintainable. 10. Accordingly, the proceedings in D.V.No.8 of 2009 are hereby quashed. The Petition is allowed accordingly. ____________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Date:09.11.2011 mrb [1] (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 169