IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6791 of 2007 Between: Pettem Srinivas ..... Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Pettem Satyavathi 2. Pettem Vivek @ Venkatesh 3. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondents/Petitioners The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.18 of 2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Luxettipet, Adilabad District, and also to suspend the order, dated 01.06.2007, passed in the D.V.C., whereunder and whereby, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards maintenance to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and also directed the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- within 10 days to Respondent No.2 herein towards his educational expenditure. 2. The petitioner herein is the Respondent No.1 and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the petitioners, in D.V.C.No.18 of 2007. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in the year 1998 itself, by virtue of an agreement, Respondent No.1 herein took an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and started living separately; and therefore, the question of domestic violence does not arise. Hence, he prays to quash the impugned proceedings. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that as far as granting of maintenance to Respondent No.2 is concerned, the father is bound to pay the maintenance to him wherever he resides; that whether there is domestic violence or not, whether the petitioner and Respondent No.1 herein are living separately in pursuance of the Agreement, dated 02.06.1998, or not, are the questions which are required to be decided in the enquiry to be conducted by the learned Magistrate and therefore, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised by this Court when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order of this Court. Whether there is domestic violence or not, whether the petitioner and Respondent No.1 herein are living separately in pursuance of the Agreement, dated 02.06.1998, or not, are the questions which cannot be decided and determined by this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They are required to be decided in the enquiry to be conducted in the D.V.C. proceedings. Hence, at this stage, the question of quashing the proceedings in the D.V.C. does not arise. 6. As regards granting of interim maintenance in the order, dated 01.06.2007, passed in the D.V.C., a plea has been taken by the petitioner herein in the counter that in pursuance of the Agreement entered between him and Respondent No.1 in the presence of the elders on 02.06.1998, they started living separately. The Agreement, dated 02.06.1998, prima facie, shows that they are living separately. As per the Agreement, dated 02.06.1998, the petitioner herein returned back the Sridhan amount of Rs.35,000/- besides handing over the gold ornaments presented by him at the time of marriage and paid an amount of Rs.95,000/- towards future maintenance of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, when Respondent No.1 allegedly received certain amount in pursuance of the Agreement, dated 02.06.1998, she is not entitled for any maintenance. Therefore, the order, dated 01.06.2007, granting maintenance of Rs.500/- to Respondent No.1 herein is set aside. 7. However, as regards granting of maintenance to Respondent No.2 herein is concerned, it has to be paid because, he is a school going child and wherever he resides, the father is bound to pay the maintenance to him. Even as per the Agreement, dated 02.06.1998, there is no provision with regard to grant of maintenance to Respondent No.2 herein. Hence, the impugned order insofar as depositing of Rs.12,000/- towards educational expenditure to Respondent No.2 and granting of maintenance to Respondent No.2 @ Rs.500/- per month are confirmed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 12th October, 2009. KL