IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2970 of 2010 Between: P.Narsimlu Raju and others …Petitione AND State of A.P. and another …Respondent / Complaina The Court made the following THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2970 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is ﬁled questioning D.V.C.No.5 of 2010 on the ﬁle of III Metropolitan Magistrate at Lal Bahadur Nagar, Cyberabad, under the provisions of Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). The second respondent, claiming herself to be wife of the ﬁrst petitioner, approached the Protection Oﬃcer who in turn, after following due procedure, presented the report before the lower Court. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is no relationship of wife and husband between the second respondent and the ﬁrst petitioner. Petitioners 2 and 3 are parents of the first petitioner. As per allegations in the representation given by the second respondent to the Protection Oﬃcer, marriage of the second respondent with the ﬁrst petitioner took place at Tirupati. It is further alleged therein that the ﬁrst petitioner claimed to have married another lady previously and was having children. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is no proof of marriage between the ﬁrst petitioner and the second respondent by way of any temple receipt or photos or certiﬁcate etc. It is a matter for evidence to be let in during enquiry of the case by the lower Court. It is further contended that Section 2(f) of the Act contemplates marriage between the parties in order to establish relationship. Section 2(f) of the Act reads as follows. “2(f):- “Domestic Relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.” Thus, in order to establish domestic relationship, marriage alone is not the criterion, but any “relationship in the nature of a marriage” will serve the purpose. Main criterion for applicability of the Act is living together in a shared household and legal relationship is not the main criterion. In this case, the second respondent / victim alleges that marriage between her and the ﬁrst petitioner took place at Tirupati and thereafter living with the petitioners at several houses as tenants. S o , prima facie, there is domestic relationship between the second respondent and the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case for proceeding with the case before the lower Court and for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the case. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 31, 2010 Bvv