IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7594 of 2008 Between: Ishaq Ali Khan & 4 others .. Petitioners AND Hoor Banu & 4 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7594 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed by respondents 1 to 5 in D.V.C.No.33 of 2008, on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, seeking to quash all further proceedings against them in the said domestic violence case. 2. The first respondent herein, for herself and her minor children respondents 2 to 4, filed the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the petitioners herein alleging that she was married to the first petitioner on 20.03.1994 and petitioners 2 to 5 were instrumental, at the time of settlement of the alliance, in making demands for dowry, furniture and other articles which were given. The husband was demanding for additional dowry and harassing the first respondent herein since inception and even after the intervention of community elders, the husband along with petitioners 2 and 4 mercilessly beat the wife. There was an incident on 17.05.2005 in which petitioners 1 to 5 physically tortured, beat and injured the first respondent herein at the house of the parents-in-law of the first respondent for which she underwent treatment in Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad. The first respondent alleged that C.C.No.551 of 2005, on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is pending in this regard. The first respondent further alleged that there were subsequent acts, by her husband, of harassment for money and when the daughter of the first respondent was seriously ill and was in Aditya Hospital, she went there, but she was abused and beaten. There was another incident on 10.03.2008 during which petitioners 1 to 5 were alleged to have forcibly entered into the first respondent’s house and to have abused the first respondent and her family members who were also assaulted. Therefore, the first respondent sought for maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and her children, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, return of dowry articles and money, costs and other reliefs. 3. During the pendency of the domestic violence case, the first respondent also sought for interim orders against the petitioners not to commit any acts of domestic violence, for interim maintenance and other reliefs. On 23.09.2008, the trial Court passed an order directing interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month each to the first respondent and her three minor children from the first petitioner herein and an interim protection order was also granted against the petitioners herein in favour of respondents 1 to 4 herein. 4. The petitioners contend that they are innocent of the alleged offences and were falsely implicated and the first petitioner herein, working as a private employee, was earning only Rs.4,000/- per month and, hence, could not pay the interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month. Petitioners 2 to 5 claimed that they are the maternal uncle, mother, married sister and brother-in-law of the husband who cannot be made liable under Section 2 (q) of the Act. The interim maintenance awarded was claimed to be excessive and the ultimate relief sought for was quashing all further proceedings. 5. Sri Y. Hyma Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pradeep Kumar Lahot, learned counsel representing Sri H. Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the 5th respondent are heard. 6. The petition filed by the first respondent before the trial Court and the affidavit filed by her requesting for interim reliefs made specific allegations against not only the husband, the first petitioner, but also petitioners 2 to 5 about their involvement in the matrimonial relationship between the husband and wife right from the negotiations for settling the alliance till the events leading to the filing of domestic violence case. The petitioners 2 to 5 were specifically alleged to be part of the physical and mental harassment of the first respondent either by themselves or by instigating the first petitioner and while considering exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this Court cannot indulge in a fact finding enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. While the grant of interim maintenance was only against the husband, the protection order was against all the petitioners as an interim measure pending the main case and the trial Court obviously was prima facie satisfied about the need for such an interim protection when such a relief was granted. Interference with the judicial discretion of the trial Court in this regard would also require very strong grounds which are not present. 7. Though the petitioners claimed the quantum of interim maintenance awarded to be excessive, the relief sought for in the criminal petition was ultimately not directed against either the grant of interim maintenance or the grant of interim protection and was directed only against the main case itself in seeking quashing of all further proceedings. However, as the determination of absence of liability of the petitioners to any relief under the special statute will have to await a finding on merits by the trial Court after due enquiry, the same cannot be subject to any summary determination herein. 8. However, the fact remains that the second petitioner who is the maternal uncle and the third petitioner who is the mother of the husband are advanced in age, while petitioners 4 and 5 are sister and brother-in-law of the husband with the 4th petitioner being stated to be a resident of Karnataka State. Their being compelled to attend on all further dates of hearing is claimed to impose a heavy financial, physical and mental burden on them and under the circumstances, if petitioners 2 to 5 are so advised and so desire, they can make an appropriate request to the trial Court for dispensing with their physical presence on all further dates of hearing, except when their presence is indispensable for further progress of the case and if such a request were to be made, the trial Court shall positively consider the same. 9. Subject to such direction, the Criminal Petition should, therefore, fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7594 of 2008 Date: 12th October, 2011 KL