IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4584 of 2008 Between: M. Narasamma and others .. Petitioners AND The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor. Though the 2nd respondent is served with notice, none entered appearance on her behalf. The criminal petition sought for quashing of further proceedings in D.V.C. No.43 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool against the petitioners and the case was initiated by the 2nd respondent who is the wife of the 1st and 2nd petitioners’ son, who is the brother of the 3rd petitioner. The 2nd respondent in her complaint to the Project Director on 11-09-2007 alleged that her husband Srinivasulu and the four petitioners herein started harassing her for additional dowry and were abusing and beating her since after one year after her marriage with Srinivasulu on 08-06-1995. The 2nd respondent referred to the case before Family Court, which was compromised and resumption of harassment by beating on the ground of her having no issues. She claimed to have escaped from the husband’s home and to have reported to Kodumuru police, due to which she sought for protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) and also she being sent back to her husband and being directed to be paid maintenance by the husband. The consequential proceedings initiated by the Project Director also specified in Form-I about the involvement of all the respondents therein in the allegations made by the 2nd respondent herein and the other reliefs claimed apart, the protection order sought for was against repetition of continuance of domestic violence by any of the respondents to the domestic violence case. Sri Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to notice the circumstances that can be deduced from the record like the household supply card, etc., from which separate residence of the husband and wife in another premises, while the petitioners are residing in different premises, can be considered probablised, which separate residence was a consequence of Lok Adalat Award in L.A.C. No.106 of 2007 of the Lok Adalat, Kurnool, dated 27-04- 2007. It may be that appreciation of such material that may be produced by the petitioners herein before the trial Court may be probablising either beyond doubt or on the balance of probabilities that the allegations of the 2nd respondent about being subjected to domestic violence by the petitioners may not be true. But the jurisdiction of this Court in an enquiry into an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be very restricted and limited in scope calling for interference only on admitted or otherwise undeniable facts and circumstances. The domestic violence case on the allegations made by the 2nd respondent cannot be considered, ex facie, not maintainable and on the own allegations of the petitioners, there was also another case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code pending in respect of similar or identical allegations made by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners herein. Hence, the proceedings further in the domestic violence case cannot be prematurely terminated when the questions in issue on fact need to be enquired into and determined by the trial Court on merits on the evidence to be placed before it by the parties. However, petitioners 1 and 2 were described to be aged 60 years and 70 years in 2008, while the 3rd petitioner was stated to be earning his livelihood with his own efforts in business. The advanced age and the consequent delicate state of health of petitioners 1 and 2 and the necessity for the 3rd petitioner to be not deviated from the business he is running, are stated to be sufficient reasons by the learned counsel to consider exempting them from personal appearance before the Court including the 4th petitioner who is a house wife. Under the circumstances, if petitioners 1 to 4 approach the trial Court with a request to dispense with their personal physical presence before the Court on the dates of hearing, the trial Court shall consider such request positively except on the dates when their physical attendance is indispensable and necessary for further progress in the case. Subject to the above direction, the criminal petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28-09-2011 Svv