IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.9454 of 2010 Between: G. Venkata Lakshmi .. Petitioner AND The State represented by Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Kurnool And another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri K. Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Jayasankar Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri C. Prakash, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor-1st respondent. The petitioner has been implicated in DVC.No.6 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, on the ground of her having illicit intimacy with the husband of the 2nd respondent. In S.C.No.94 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool also, the petitioner was involved as 5th accused and the judgment of the trial Court dated 2-11-2006 showed that there was no direct oral or documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to show that the husband of the 2nd respondent is having illegal illicit intimacy with the petitioner herein. The Court of Session consequently acquitted the petitioner herein on that and other grounds. In the Domestic Violence Case initiated at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein also, the only reason given for implication of the present petitioner is the illegal contact with the husband of the 2nd respondent. The provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, more particularly, the definition of domestic relationship under Section 2 (f) contemplate a relationship between two persons who 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. The definition of respondent under Section 2 (q) refers to any adult male person in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person while permitting under the proviso filing of a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. Either any adult male person, who can be made a respondent or a relative of the husband against whom also a complaint can be made, cannot be construed to cover any woman having any intimacy with the husband of the aggrieved woman, even if the relationship between such woman and the husband may have to be considered to be within the meaning of a relationship in the nature of marriage, though not covered by a formal marriage. The petitioner, if her illicit intimacy with the husband of the 2nd respondent is true, may seek the protection of the Act on such construction, but none can seek any liability to be imposed on the petitioner on the ground of any such illicit intimacy on the plain and unambiguous language of any provision of the statute. The Criminal Petition has to, therefore, succeed and the exercise of inherent power in favour of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, hence, called for. Accordingly, the further proceedings in DVC.No.6 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, are, hence, quashed against the petitioner and the Criminal Petition is allowed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-10-2011 Ksn