THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12306 AND 11463 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Both the Criminal Petitions are directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.109 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, against the petitioners herein in both the cases. 2. The second respondent in both the criminal petitions filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) against eight respondents, who are the petitioners herein, alleging that she was married to Sk.Irfan on 20.12.2003 as per Muslim Rites and Customs at which time, cash of Rs.60,000/-, 4 tulas of gold, household articles and Hero Honda Motor bike were given. She claimed to have lived with her husband happily for two years at Yellandu after which the petitioners in Crl.P.No.12306 of 2010 started harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and abused and beat her in the absence of her husband. In spite of the request of her husband, they continued the harassment and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.11463 of 2010, who are the daughters and sons- in-law of petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.12306 of 2010, with their frequent visits to the house of the second respondent, were also harassing her with the same demands and also belittling her husband. The parents of the second respondent gave Rs.1,00,000/- with great difficulty, which was paid to the father-in-law in the presence of other respondents to the domestic violence case and after receiving money, all the petitioners necked out the second respondent and her husband from the house which was reported to the police. Since then, they are staying at LMD Colony, Thimmapur and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.12306 of 2010 were stated to be not allowing them to return to the house and to be not returning the belongings of the second respondent and her husband. Hence, she requested for a direction to all the respondents 1 to 8 for return of the gold ornaments, household articles and clothes as well as cash of Rs.2,00,000/- paid to the father- in-law apart from a protection order against the respondents in the domestic violence case. 3. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.11463 of 2010 contend that there was no specific allegation against them and the petitioners 2 and 4 were married and were living with their husbands even since prior to the marriage of the second respondent. The petitioners claimed that they never lived in the same house with the second respondent at any time and could not have committed any acts of domestic violence. The question of the petitioners demanding any additional dowry does not arise and in the absence of any details in the case and absence of any scope for grant of any relief against them in the domestic violence case, the proceedings have to be discontinued. The first petitioner is working in the Department of Mines & Geology at Miryalaguda and is living with his wife and school going children in that place, while the third petitioner, working as a Coal Filler, is living with his wife at Bhupalpally, Warangal District. The fifth petitioner recently gave birth to a male child and the petitioners are not in a position to be subjected to the ordeal of attending the Court on all the dates of hearing. They claimed that the husband of the second respondent had a dispute regarding house property with his father and after exchange of notices, he got a false case filed against all the petitioners. Hence, they desired the proceedings against them to be quashed. 4. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.12306 of 2010 claimed that even against them, there was no specific allegation and there were no details of any date, time and place of the alleged acts of domestic violence. The third petitioner was stated to have been recently married and the petitioners were claimed to be living at Yellandu of Khammam District, while the second respondent was living with her husband at Karimnagar since December, 2005. The domestic violence case is, therefore, alleged to be an abuse of process of law and the allegations regarding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- or return of the movables and cash etc, were claimed to be false. The petitioners alleged that the second respondent and her husband hardly lived for five months after the marriage with the parents of the husband and at the age of 72 years of the father, the husband of the second respondent was disputing in respect of the house. The reliefs claimed cannot be granted in the absence of any documentary evidence and the parents had to spend a huge sum for getting the husband of the second respondent divorced from his first wife and to get him married to the second respondent. The father was claimed to be suffering from high sugar, heart problem and gangrene being treated at Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, while the mother, a retired teacher, is said to be taking treatment for high blood pressure and brain related problem at Neuro Hospital, Hyderabad. Attending the Court at Karimnagar is avoidable compulsion for them and the daily earnings of the third petitioner will be adversely effected if they have to attend the Court regularly. Hence, the petitioners in Crl.P.No.12306 of 2010 also desired the proceedings against them to be quashed. 5. Heard Sri Surendra Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor / the first respondent in both the cases. The second respondent is un-represented during hearing though appearing through a counsel and though the matters are posted for orders today. 6. The point for consideration is whether the Domestic Violence Case is unsustainable against the petitioners in both the cases. 7. Insofar as the petitioners in Crl.P.No.11463 of 2010 are concerned, the petition leading to domestic violence case made general and vague allegations of their frequent visits to the house of the second respondent and their demands to bring an additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents, while criticizing the husband of the second respondent is incompetent. The mere presence of the petitioners when an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was allegedly paid to the father of the second respondent’s husband gives no cause of action to the second respondent to sue any of them, while the petitioners, who are the daughters and sons-in-law of the second respondent’s husband’s parents, joining in necking out the second respondent and her husband from the house does not appear to be even remotely probable or possible. The claim that the first petitioner is working in the Department of Mines and Geology at Miryalaguda, with whom the second petitioner and their children are staying is further probabalized by a copy of the identity card issued by the State Government to the first petitioner in this regard. Similarly, the copy of the third petitioner’s identity card, issued by Singareni Colleiries Company Limited, probablises the claim of the third petitioner and his wife, the fourth petitioner staying at Bhupalpally, the place of employment of the third petitioner. The fifth petitioner is stated to have been married and to have given birth to a male child recently and she is stated to be residing at Yellandu itself, but in a different house obviously with her husband’s family. The petitioners 1 to 4 were claimed to have been married much before the marriage of the second respondent and in the ordinary and natural course of human events, their frequently visiting the house of the second respondent from distant places just to make demands for additional dowry or necking out the second respondent and her husband are artificial and unacceptable claims. The further proceedings in the domestic violence case have to therefore, fail against them at the inception even without necessity of any enquiry, more so, when the alleged necking out of the second respondent and her husband was not subjected to any complaint by them to the police or for that matter, any others so far. 8. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.12306 of 2010 also claimed to be equally innocent, but it is seen from the allegations in the domestic violence case that specific allegations were made against the father of second respondent’s husband about receiving the cash of Rs.1,00,000/- from the second respondent given to her by her parents and a relief was sought for return of the said amount. The allegations also show that the gold ornaments, household articles and clothes of the second respondent and her husband were also claimed to have been retained in the house of the first petitioner in Crl.P.No.12306 of 2010. The copies of the notices exchanged between the husband of the second respondent and his father show that the ownership and possession of the house with the father is admitted and he only wanted the father not to enter into any transaction in respect of the house. In reply, the father stated that he did not possess any property and also sought for maintenance from the son. Irrespective of the other aspects, the exchange of notices suggests the probability of the father being in possession and enjoyment of the house where the articles and valuables are alleged to have been kept back. While the truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into a restricted summary enquiry to consider invoking of the inherent powers of this Court in favour of the petitioners, there cannot be said to be total absence of any cause of action against the father of the second respondent’s husband and in the said circumstances, his susceptibility to any reliefs in the case has to be, of course, decided by the trial court on merits on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it by the parties. 9. However, coming to the mother and brother of the second respondent’s husband, the allegations in the domestic violence case are vague, indefinite, omnibus and general in character. The third petitioner is stated to have been married only on 25.06.2010 and to be engaged as a Mechanic at the age of 25 years. He claimed to be having nothing to do with the marital life of the second respondent. The mother, who is a retired teacher, aged about 60 years by the time of filing of the petition, claimed to have been deprived of all her retiral benefits to have the second respondent’s husband divorced from the first wife. The general allegation that they are also harassing second respondent for additional dowry and were abusing her some times even in the absence of her husband and were part of necking out her and her husband may not be justified in any manner. Though such discontinuance is not on the ground of the allegations being untrue, the same is due to such vague allegations being inherently improbable and artificial not inspiring even prima facie confidence in a judicial mind. 10. Therefore, the further proceedings in the domestic violence case need to be discontinued against all the petitioners in both the cases except the first petitioner in Crl.P.No.12306 of 2010. 11. The first petitioner in Crl.P.No.12306 of 2010 is described to be aged 63 years in the domestic violence case and claimed to be aged 72 years by the petitioners. He is stated to be suffering from Diabetes, cardiac problems and gangrene being treated at Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. Sri Surendra Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, requested that his personal presence may be dispensed with on the future dates of hearing, except when required. The request can be considered as reasonable. 12. Therefore, the further proceedings in D.V.C No.109 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, are quashed against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.11463 of 2010 and against the petitioners 2 and 3 in Crl.P.no.12306 of 2010 and both the criminal petitions are allowed accordingly, except in respect of the first petitioner in Crl.P.No.12306 of 2010 in respect of whom the petition stands dismissed. However, if the first petitioner in Crl.P.No.12306 of 2010 so desires and is so advised he can make an appropriate request to the trial Court to dispense with his personal presence on all future dates of hearing except when his presence is absolutely indispensable for further progress of the case. In the event of such a request being made, the trial Court shall positively consider the same. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 30, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.12306 AND 11463 OF 2010 Between in Crl.P.No.12306 of 2010: Shaik Rahamathulla and others. ...PETITIONERS AND The State of A.P. and another. …RSPONDENTS Between in Crl.P.No.11463 of 2010: Md.Anwarpasha and others. ...PETITIONERS AND The State of A.P. and another. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.12306 AND 11463 OF 2010 30.11.2011 YVL