THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5188 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is directed against continuance of D.V.C.No. 7 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bodhan, Nizamabad District against petitioners 2 to 6 herein and the petition in respect of the 1st petitioner was not pressed and dismissed as such on 22.07.2009. The Domestic Violence Case against petitioners 1 to 6 had been instituted by the 2nd respondent herein alleging that she was married to the 1st petitioner on 12.03.2000 at Basheerabad, Kammarpally Mandal and out of their wedlock, a son was born to them. She claimed that her parents gave Rs.1,50,000/- cash and Rs.1,00,000/- worth of house hold articles and Rs.1 lac worth gold and silver articles as dowry, at the time of marriage, apart from expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- for performance of marriage. The 2nd respondent claimed that petitioners 1 to 6 were living together at Basheerabad and after the 1st petitioner left for Dubai, petitioners 2 to 6 harassed her mentally and physically, expressing discontent about not bringing more dowry. The 1st petitioner did not bother when he was informed about the harassment, on his return in 2002, and he went back after two months. He again returned in 2004. Then all the petitioners started demanding additional dowry of Rs.2 lacs to enable the 1st petitioner to establish an automobile shop. A panchayat was claimed to have been held in 2005, but the harassment was stated to have been continued and the 1st petitioner was alleged to be suspecting her, abusing her and beating her. Again there was a demand for additional dowry of Rs.2 lacs by petitioners 2 to 6. In the panchayat conducted on 14.11.2007 at Yedapally, they reiterated their demand, and therefore, the 2nd respondent sought for protection for the lives of herself and her child. She claimed maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from all the petitioners. She claimed that cash and articles given as dowry were not returned. The petitioners claim that the allegations are false and the 1st petitioner never harassed the 2nd respondent. It was in fact, the 2nd respondent, who harassed the 1st petitioner. The 2nd respondent was stated to have reported to the police, Yedapalli resulting in registration of Crime No. 116 of 2007, under Section 498-A I.P.C. and C.C.No. 144 of 2008. The 2nd respondent was also claimed to have filed a private complaint against the petitioners in C.C.No. 271 of 2008 for the same offences and a maintenance case against the 1st petitioner in M.C.No. 14 of 2008. The Domestic Violence Case was filed with an intention to harass the petitioners for prosecuting them, at a place long in distance from their residence and as there were no sustainable allegations against petitioners 2 to 6, they desired the further proceedings against them to be quashed. Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for petitioners 2 to 6, Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/Respondent No.1 are heard. The point for consideration is whether the domestic violence case is liable to be quashed against petitioners 2 to 6 herein. The relief sought for in the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) filed by the 2nd respondent herein against petitioners 1 to 6 herein alleging harassment by petitioners 2 to 6 in the absence of the 1st petitioner and harassment by the 1st petitioner on his return to the country, leading to panchayat before the elders and ultimate request for an order of protection for the 2nd respondent and her child, is grant of monetary compensation and grant of maintenance. In so far as the grant of maintenance and grant of monetary compensation claimed by the 2nd respondent are concerned, none of petitioners 2 to 6 can be made personally or otherwise liable for such reliefs and it is for the husband/1st petitioner to answer such claims. While this Court would not indulge in any fact finding enquiry in this restricted summary jurisdiction, for consideration of any justification for exercise of the inherent power of this Court, in favour of any of the petitioners, on the allegations of the 2nd respondent herself, the reliefs of monetary compensation and maintenance cannot be considered even remotely against petitioners 2 to 6. However, insofar as the relief of protection sought for under Section 18 of the special statute is concerned, the same shared household/matrimonial home is said to be the residence of petitioners 1 to 4 at Basheerabad, Kammarapalli Mandal, Nizamabad District, while petitioners 5 and 6, who are working as teacher and Reporter of a newspaper respectively are residents of Bheemgal Village. The provisions of the special statute show that the domestic relationship is defined to be a relationship concerning living together in a shared household when the parties are related in any manner prescribed in the statute, or living together as members in a joint family. It is the existence of a domestic relationship with reference to the said shared household that can form the basis of any act of domestic violence under Section 18(a) of the statute and petitioners 5 and 6 are carrying on their avocations elsewhere and residing elsewhere and they have nothing to do with the residence shared by the 2nd respondent and petitioners 1 to 4. They cannot be suspected to be capable of indulging in any act of domestic violence in relation to the matrimonial life or domestic relationship of the 2nd respondent and therefore, ex facie no relief appears to be sustainable against petitioners 5 and 6. The specific allegations from time to time by the 2nd respondent and the manner of living of petitioners 1 to 4 may make it necessary for the domestic violence case to continue against petitioners 1 to 4 to be decided on merits in accordance with law by the trial Court after a detailed enquiry. The continuance of the proceedings against petitioners 5 and 6 does not appear to be in the interests of justice, even prima facie. The further proceedings have to be therefore, discontinued against them, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that taking into consideration the age and occupation of petitioners 2 to 4 and the imposition of an enormous physical and mental burden on them, they may not be compelled to attend on all future dates of hearing in the domestic violence case, while it may be obligatory for the husband/1st petitioner to answer the charges levelled by his wife with his physical presence. As the parties belong to a middleclass background and as no purpose would be served by compelling petitioners 2 to 4 to be present on all the dates of hearing, except at the cost of avoidable inconvenience and discomfort, petitioners 2 to 4 can be permitted to make an appropriate request before the trial Court to dispense with their presence on all future dates of hearing except when such physical presence is indispensable for the further progress of the case and if such a request were to be made before the trial Court, the same shall be positively considered by the Court. In the result, the further proceedings in D.V.C.No. 7 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bodhan, Nizamabad District against petitioners 5 and 6 are quashed and the Petition is allowed accordingly in respect of petitioners 5 and 6 and it is dismissed in respect of petitioners 2 to 4, while it has already been dismissed as not pressed against the 1st petitioner on 22.07.2009. No costs. -------------------------------- (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 2nd November 2011 ksld