THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7384 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. K.Prem Kumar, S/o.Balaiah & 3 others. … Petitioners AND 1. The State of A.P. & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7384 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3 are parents’-in-law and sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent. The 4th petitioner is husband of the 3rd petitioner. The petitioners 1 and 2 are residents of Karimnagar District. The petitioners 3 and 4 are residents of Orissa State. The 2nd respondent filed D.V.C.No.26 of 2009 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners 1 to 4 and her husband. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that marriage of the 2nd respondent with her husband was a love marriage without the knowledge of the petitioners and that after marriage, they came to know about the same and that at no point of time, the 2nd respondent lived along with the petitioners 1 to 4 and that the 2nd respondent was living with her husband at Hyderabad. It is further stated by the petitioners’ counsel that marriage of the 2nd respondent with her husband became dissolved by virtue of a divorce decree. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that in view of the petitioners not living with the 2nd respondent at any time, there is no domestic relationship between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). Assuming for the sake of argument that there is no domestic relationship between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, it cannot be said that no case under Section 12 of the Act can be entertained at the instance of the 2nd respondent as against the petitioners. The case under Section 12 of the Act can be instituted by an aggrieved person against a respondent. “Respondent is defined in Section 2(q) of the Act as follows: “Respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act. Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.” 2. The term ‘respondent’ includes not only a person having domestic relation with the aggrieved person, but also a person who is related to husband of the aggrieved person by virtue of her marriage with him. Therefore, it cannot be said that D.V.C.No.26 of 2009 is not maintainable insofar as the petitioners 1 to 4 are concerned. 3. In the D.V.C., the 2nd respondent claimed protection under Section 18 of the Act and also relief under Section 19 of the Act from alienating the properties standing in their names against all the respondents, apart from claiming maintenance and alternative accommodation against the husband. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not necessary parties to the case. 4. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispense with the presence of the petitioners 1 to 4 who are the respondents 2 to 5 in D.V.C.No.26 of 2009 during enquiry, except on the date of delivery of judgment. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 25.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.7384 of 2009 DATED: 25.03.2011 ysk