THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.8768 of 2008 Date : 17-3-2010 Between : Smt.Anees Shahnaz Tayyaba and others .. Petitioners and Smt.Tarannum Fatima and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.8768 of 2008 ORDER: 1. Heard the Counsel on record. 2. The principal of the learned Counsel representing the petitioners is that though the petitioners are related since the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted as against the petitioners, no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the D.V.C. under challenge. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 2nd respondent would maintain that these aspects also can be gone into at the time of final disposal of the D.V.C. 4. Sri Arun Kumar representing Sri Mukheed, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent would maintain that all these petitioners are residing under the same roof and in the light of the facts and circumstances, for the purpose of granting the reliefs prayed for, the presence of these petitioners also would be essential. 5. It is stated that A-1 is the husband of the 1st respondent/complainant. A-2 is the mother-in-law, A-3 is the father-in- law, A-4 and A-5 are sisters-in-law, A-6 is the brother-in-law and A-7 is the maternal uncle of the complainant. It is further stated that the marriage between A-1 and the 1st respondent/complainant took place on 17-2-2006 at Hyderabad as per the Muslim rites and customs. At the time of marriage, it is alleged that the parents of the 1st respondent/complainant gave A-1 cash of Rs.10 lakhs, i.e., Rs.5 lakhs cash and Rs.5 lakhs cheque, 35 tulas of gold ornaments and other items including electronic items and valuable gifts worth Rs.3,50,000/- and also spent Rs.2 lakhs towards marriage expenses and on other aspects. After the marriage, they lived happily for some time and thereafter on one pretext respondent the other all the respondents had been harassing the 1st respondent/complainant mentally and physically and as such the complainant underwent treatment many times. The petitioners had not even provided proper medical care to the complainant. The complainant was blessed with a male child on 28-3-2007. It is also further alleged that even after delivery, the petitioners had started harassing the complainant and finally on 21-4- 2008 the petitioners and other accused threw the complainant out of their house situate at Yakatpura, Hyderabad. 6. However, the petitioners stated that they are innocent of the offences alleged against them and that a false complaint had been filed. It is further stated by the petitioners that there is no iota of truth in the allegations made in the complaint and no specific allegations had been made in the complaint against any of the accused except the omnibus allegations against the petitioners stating that all the petitioners and other accused harassed the complainant. Further it is stated that no relief can be claimed against mother-in-law and sisters- in-law who were shown as A-2, A-4 and A-5 and that the reliefs claimed are maintainable only against A-1 and not against others. It is also further stated that A-6 is the brother-in-law of the complainant and he has nothing to do with the reliefs claimed by the 1st respondent/complainant. A-7 is the maternal uncle of the complainant and he is living elsewhere and has nothing to do with the family of A- 1. It is further stated that the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act clearly excludes women from the purview of the said Act. 7. In the light of the facts and circumstances and on a careful analysis of the reliefs prayed for, this Court is of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the petitioners are totally unconnected with the D.V.C. under challenge. However, this ground also may be submitted as one of the grounds at the appropriate stage. 8. With the aforesaid liberty, the Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date : 17-3-2010 AM