HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITIONER NO.894 OF 2009 DATE:06.08.2010 Between: Md. Hussain and 2 others …… Petitioners. And: The State of AP., rep. by PP, High Court of AP and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITIONER NO.894 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 3 are respondents 2 to 4 in D.V.C.No.3 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Miryalaguda filed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd petitioner is husband of sister of the first respondent. The 3rd petitioner is maternal uncle of the 2nd respondent’s husband. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that criminal case foisted by her under Section 498-A IPC was not filed against the 1st petitioner and that his name was deleted from the criminal case by the police after investigation and that the petitioners 2 and 3 are distant relations against whom no order for residence can be passed. The petitioners’ counsel placed reliance on S.R.Batra v. Taruna Batra[1], of the Supreme Court to the effect that shared house hold accommodation order can be passed against the husband only and not against any other relations. 2. In D.V.C.No.3 of 2009, the 2nd respondent has claimed reliefs of protection under Section 18, residence under Section 19 and maintenance under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). In so far as residence and maintenance are concerned, no order can be passed against the petitioners 1 to 3. It is a matter of fact to be decided by the lower court after enquiry whether protection order under Section 18 of the Act can be granted against the petitioners also apart from the 1st respondent’s husband who is not a party herein. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not necessary parties to the Domestic Violence Case. 3. Since the proceedings under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act are more in the nature of civil matter though decided by criminal court, presence of the petitioners 1 to 3 at the time of enquiry of the case by the lower court is necessary. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, presence of the petitioners 1 to 3 who are respondents 2 to 4 in D.V.C.No.3 of 2009 shall be dispensed with during enquiry of the case by the lower court except on the date of delivery of order by the lower court. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:06.08.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITIONER NO.894 OF 2009 Date:06.08.2010 Gk. [1] AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1118