IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3698 OF 2010. Date:26.04.2010 Between:- B.Mahesh Kumar and others ..Petitioners/Respondent Nos.1 to 4 And The Project Director, Women and Child Welfare Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District and others. .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioners 1 to 4 are husband, parents-in-law and sister- in-law of the third respondent, who filed D.V.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Avanigadda against the petitioners claiming reliefs under Sections 18 to 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). 2. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. During lawful wedlock, the third respondent delivered a female child and she is with the third respondent. Previously, at the instance of the third respondent, Begumpet police registered case in Crime No.90 of 2008 against the petitioners 1 to 3 for offences under Sections 498- A, 494 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, it is stated that the police filed charge sheet in this crime against the petitioners 1 to 3 for offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is also no dispute that the third respondent filed M.C.No.55 of 2008 in Family Court, Secunderabad claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C and that it was allowed granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the third respondent and Rs.500/- per month to the third respondent’s minor daughter. It is stated that revision petition filed by the first petitioner is pending in this Court. 3. It is alleged by the third respondent that inspite of maintenance award passed by the Family Court, the first petitioner is not paying maintenance amounts as directed therein. So the third respondent now filed D.V.C.No.1 of 2010 for protection order under Section 18, for an order as to residence under Section 19, for monetary relief under Section 20 and also compensation or damages under Section 22 of the Act. She also applied for necessary interim orders under Section 23 of the Act. 4. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that having filed criminal case and maintenance case, now the third respondent resorted to file this domestic violence case and that it is nothing but abuse of process of law. 5. Simply because the third respondent launched criminal proceedings against the petitioners 1 to 3 under Sections 498-A, 494 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and simply because the third respondent moved Criminal Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance to herself and to her minor daughter, it will not prevent the third respondent to claim protection and other reliefs under the Act. This Court is of the opinion that the wife is entitled to choose any of the said remedies as well as all remedies put together having regard to circumstances of each case. There is no overlapping of reliefs in these cases. There is no legal prohibition for the wife to invoke all the above provisions in different Courts so that she would get fruits of the litigation atleast in one or two Courts. I do not see any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010 in this petition, while exercising powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed. At any rate, personal attendance of the petitioners 3 and 4 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010 in the lower Court is dispensed with. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 26th April 2010 AMD