HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRL.P.No.7862 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in D.V.C.No.6 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, ﬁled by the 2nd respondent herein/complainant therein (for short ‘the complainant’) with a request to conduct enquiry and register a criminal case against her husband, parents-in-law and sisters-in- law, the respondents therein including the petitioners herein, and give custody of the child of the complainant and 1st respondent in the complaint, to her, so far as the petitioners herein i.e. the respondents 2 to 6 in the complaint are concerned, on the ground that the marriage between the complainant and her husband took place on 05- 06-1998 and soon after the marriage, they lived in U.S.A. for sometime and thereafter, the complainant returned to India on 07-10-2007 and started living at Suryapet, Nalgonda District, and in the year 2007 itself, the complainant separated from her husband and since then she has been living separately and she never lived along with the petitioners 1 to 5 herein (Respondents 2 to 6 in the D.V.C. case), and hence, the relevant provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘the Act’) as framed are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 2. As per the complaint ﬁled by her, all the respondents (therein) harassed her in many ways and her husband had taken away her valuable articles along with important documents. 3. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the allegations made in the complaint are within the ambit of the Act and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Now the point for consideration is whether there are suﬃcient grounds in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for. 5. By virtue of the provisions of 2 (f) (g) (s) of the Act, the question of determining domestic violence here is based upon whether all of them lived in a shared house during relevant period. The provisions of 2 (f) (g) (s) of the Act read thus: “(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; (g) " domestic violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3; (s) " shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;” But there is no averment in the records to the eﬀect that the petitioners herein i.e. respondents 2 to 6 (in the DVC) lived along with the complainant in a shared house. If at all there was any marital harassment of the complainant, she can take necessary measures for punishing them under other relevant Acts. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings in D.V.C.No.6 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ___________________________ 18th November 2011 G.KRISHNAMOHAN REDDY,J kvr