IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2614 OF 2008 Between: Orugonda Chadrarekha and another ..... PETITIONERS AND Orugonda Sireesha and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2614 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.10 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. 2. Petitioners herein are respondent Nos.2 and 3 in D.V.C.No.10 of 2007. 3. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that respondent No.1 in the complaint is the husband of respondent No.1 herein. Petitioners herein are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.1 herein. According to respondent No.1 herein, on 11.02.2001 her marriage was performed with one Sudhakar, who worked as Junior Assistant at Nagari Sub-Registration Office. At the time of marriage an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold were given as stridhana. It is alleged that she was harassed mentally and physically at her in-laws house for additional dowry by all the accused. They also spent her streedhana amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for their own purpose and the same was not agreed by the complainant as she was an educated woman and thereby she went to her parents’ house. There was mediation and thereafter she joined her matrimonial home. It is alleged that she was not properly treated when she was carrying. She returned to her parents’ house and continued to stay there and gave birth to one male child named as Bhuran Sai. While she was appearing for B.Ed. exams, her husband filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights against her. When she tried to resolve and join with him, he gave a report to police with false allegations. Then her parents met the police and submitted all the facts. Police called both the parties, after mediation, took statements from respondent No.1 herein and her husband and sent her to her matrimonial home on 14.12.2006. Then her husband set up a family at Gthepally Village, where there were no facilities, and harassed her mentally. Frequently, her husband used to bring respondent No. 1 herein to her mother-in-law's house in Chandragiri and was ill-treating her through the petitioners herein. It is further alleged that when she asked her husband to shift the family either to Nagari or to Tirupathi, her husband threatened her to bring Rs.15,00,000/- from her father or otherwise she would have to stay at Gthepally only and also said that if she was not interested, she could leave without child from the house. With no other option, respondent No.1 herein left the company of her husband and reached her parents’ house at Nellore on 18.06.2007. Because of these things she filed the present application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”) claiming:- i) To give his righteous share in his father's property to upbring the child properly; ii) And to pay Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance charges regularly; iii) To return back the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-given by her parents as dowry. 4. If the allegations in the complaint do not disclose a prima facie case for the reliefs prayed for under the Act, then only the question of quashing the complaint arises. Specific allegations are levelled against petitioner No.1 herein, who is respondent No.2 in the D.V.C., alleging that the petitioners herein along with respondent No.1 in the D.V.C. demanded Rs.3,00,000/- at the time of performing marriage between respondent No.1 herein and respondent No.1 in the D.V.C. and spent that amount for their own purpose. Therefore, the prayer to give respondent No.1 in D.V.C. his righteous share in his father's property, to pay maintenance charges and return back the dowry amount, was sought for in the D.V.C. The dowry amount is said to have been received by respondent No.1 in the D.V.C. and petitioner No.1 herein. There is no allegation whatsoever against petitioner No.2 herein, except stating that she was harassing respondent No.1 herein mentally. What is the nature of that harassment has not been clearly stated. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, she is a widower residing at her in-laws house far away from the place where respondent No.1 herein and respondent No.1 in the D.V.C. lived together. Even otherwise, if the case of respondent No.1 herein is to be accepted as true and correct, no relief can be granted by the trial Court insofar as petitioner No.2 herein is concerned. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against petitioner No.2 herein is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence, the proceedings against petitioner No.2 herein/respondent No.3 in the D.V.C., are hereby quashed. Insofar as petitioner No.1 herein/respondent No.2 in the D.V.C. is concerned the quash petition is dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J July 15, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2614 OF 2008 July 15, 2010