IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.815 OF 2009 Between: G.Srinias & 3 others … PETITIONERS And The Protection Officer/Project Officer & another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.815 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 4 are respondents 1 to 4 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2009, on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, filed at the instance of the second respondent herein. The first petitioner is husband of the second respondent. The second petitioner is mother and the petitioners 3 and 4 are sisters of the first petitioner. At the instance of the second respondent, the first respondent who is the Protection Officer instituted the complaint in the lower Court claiming relieves under Sections 18, 19 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). 2. The petitioners’ counsel urged that no order of maintenance and no order for residence can be granted against family members other than husband, by placing reliance on MOHAMMAD MAQEENUDDIN AHMED VS. STATE OF A.P.[1] of this Court and S.R. BATRA VS. TARUNA BATRA (SMT)[2] of the Supreme Court. 3. There cannot be any dispute for the said propositions. In the complaint, no claim for maintenance under Section 20 of the Act was made. Insofar as protection order under Section 18 and compensation under Section 22 of the Act are concerned, the cause of action is there for the respondents to institute the case against all the petitioners, particularly having regard to the facts alleged in the complaint. 4. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the entire cause of action took place at Langar House, within Hyderabad limits, and not at Rajendranagar, within Ranga Reddy District limits, and that therefore, the lower Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. 5. Territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law. It cannot be gone into and decided by this Court. After recording evidence of both the parties, if the lower Court comes to the conclusion that no part of the cause of action took place within its jurisdiction, then it is open to the lower Court to return the complaint for presentation to proper Court. 6. Subject to the above observations, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, presence of the petitioners 2 to 4 who are ladies may not be insisted by the lower Court during enquiry of the case, but their presence is to be secured at the time of delivery of order of this case. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 12, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.815 OF 2009 August 12, 2010 KL [1] 2007 CRI. L. J. 3361 [2] (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 169