HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3728 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioners are husband and the parents of the husband of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent laid DVC No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada, Krishna District U/Secs.18 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act ( ‘Domestic Violance Act’, for Short) Inter alia Sri T.Pradyumnakumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the alleged incident occurred in or around June, 2005 and that prima-facie no case is made out. Admittedly, the Domestic Violance Act came into force with effect from 26-10-2006. However, in view of Sec.1(f) of the Domestic Violance Act, the courts have held that the same is retrospective in operation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners prima-faice are not liable for prosecution in view of the offence occurring in or around June,2005 therefore, is not sustainable. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners also suggested that the case under the provisions of the Domestic Violance Act cannot be allowed against women and that DVC No.6 of 2008 prima-facie is not maintainable against the third petitioner, who is a lady. Sri K.Lakshmi Manohar, learned counsel representing the 1st respondent pointed out that courts have declared that the Domestic Violance Act is applicable against the actions of lady members of the family also. In the light of the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. Hyderabad, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that DVC No.6 of 2008 prima-facie is not maintainable against the 3rd petitioner cannot be accepted. 3. The petitioners allegedly committed the offences or the actions as contemplated by Secs.18 to 22 of the Domestic Violance Act and are liable to be dealt with under the provisions of the Act. This petition therefore, desires to be dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew my special attention to each of the petitioners 2 and 3. When this petition was laid in 2008, the 2nd petitioner, who is the father of the husband was described to be 63 years old. The third petitioner, who is the mother of the husband was described to be 61 years old. Both of them are senior citizens. It would be just and proper to permit them to appear before the court on the special directions of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada, Krishna District at the time of disposal of DVC No.6 of 2008 and not till that date subject to the condition that they are represented before the trial court and in DVC 6 of 2008. 5. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed so far as the main relief of quashing DVC No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada, Krishna District, against the petitioners is concerned. However, the petitioners 2 and 3, who are the parents of the 1st petitioner are permitted not to appear before the trial court except on the date of the order subject to their representation by the counsel and also on any other occasion when the trial court may call for their presence for the reasons to be recorded explicitly by the trial court. 7. The Criminal Petition is ordered, accordingly. _______________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Mjl/*