IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7685 of 2009 Between: Nukala Peda Balakrishna Murthy @ Kittaiah and another .. Petitioners AND Nukala Venkata Sulochanamma and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Criminal Petition is directed against further proceedings in DVC.No.1 of 2009 on the ﬁle of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri, against the petitioners, impleaded as respondents 4 and 5 therein. The complaint of the 1st respondent herein to the protection oﬃcer resulted in domestic violence report against the respondents therein. The 1st respondent herein alleged in the Domestic Violence Case that she was married to the 3rd respondent in the Domestic Violence Case on 2-9-2004 and faced hell from respondents 4 to 8, the members of the family of the husband. She alleged that the petitioners herein demanded her to bring more money towards dowry and to get a loan from the bank by pledging her SSC marks memo and she was claimed to have been harassed physically and mentally. She claimed that two years prior to 13-07-2007, the 1st petitioner herein beat her in the presence of her husband and necked her out of the house. She further claimed that her husband was instigated by the 1st petitioner herein to be beaten on 17-6-2007 at the house of her parents and she made various other allegations against the other respondents to the Domestic Violence Case. She ultimately sought for the reliefs of a protection order, a residence order and monetary reliefs. On 24-02-2009, when the matter came up before the learned Magistrate, he noted that the husband submitted that he earns Rs.50/- per day by doing cloth business, while the 4th respondent therein, the father- in-law, submitted that he deals in gold business. The learned Magistrate observed that the 1st respondent herein is not having any place of abode and was not allowed to go to her job also by the respondents and hence, in view of the domestic relationship between respondents 3 and 4 to the case, they were directed to pay Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- each respectively per month towards food and shelter to the 1st respondent herein under Section 19 (f) read with Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 till further orders. The petitioners ﬁled the present Criminal Petition contending that the 1st respondent herein is working as computer operator in Mukunda Dairy, Pamur Road, Kanigiri and she is able to maintain herself. They claimed that the main grievance in the Domestic Violence Case is against the parents of the 1st respondent and the petitioners, who are parents- in-law, have nothing to do with the allegations of the 1st respondent. The mother-in-law, in any view, had nothing to do with the case even according to the allegations of the 1st respondent and the father-in-law is not liable to pay any amount towards food and shelter under the Act. Hence, the petitioners desired that the further proceedings against them be quashed and the order dated 24-02-2009 directing the 1st petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- per month be set aside. Heard Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/2nd respondent. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings against the petitioners in the Domestic Violence Case have to be terminated? The marriage between the 1st respondent herein and the son of the petitioners had admittedly taken place on 02-09-2004 and there was absolutely no proceeding before any Court or any law enforcement agency alleging any physical or mental harassment or cruelty against the 1st respondent herein up to the complaint by the 1st respondent to the protection oﬃcer leading to the present Domestic Violence Case. The alleged incidents about two years prior to 13-07-2007 during which the 1st petitioner allegedly assaulted the 1st respondent herein and necked her out of their house was also not reported to any person and any person, who allegedly mediated in this regard, was also not named or identiﬁed. The 1 st respondent herself alleged that after ﬁling of the maintenance case by her on 09-03-2007, the father-in- law also accompanied her husband to her parents house for talking about the disputes and the alleged beating of the 1st respondent by her husband at the instance of 1st petitioner herein on 17-06-2007 at the parents house of the 1st respondent was also not the subject of any report to any person. The 1st respondent made allegations against her own parents regarding the whole sequence of events and the ultimate incident on 29-10-2008, which allegedly led the 1st respondent to approach the protection oﬃcer, was allegedly involving her parents but not the parents-in-law or the husband. Though the 1st respondent has made violent allegations, they are general, vague and omnibus without any speciﬁcs and as already stated, without any independent corroboration of happening of any such incidents during a period of more than 5 years by the time the present Domestic Violence Case had its birth. In Column-2 of Form-II various reliefs appeared to have been sought for under the Act, but so far as monetary reliefs are concerned, it is not known as to how the father-in-law could have been made liable when the husband is very much alive and liable to maintain the wife, if the wife is justiﬁed in living separately and unable to maintain herself. It is only regarding protection order or residence order that the parents- in-law might have ﬁgured in, if the stay of the husband of the 1st respondent was in a shared household along with them. The wholesale allegations made against the parents, parents-in-law, husband and relatives were obviously found not tenable at least in relation to respondents 10 and 11 to the Domestic Violence Case, who were discharged by the trial Court on a petition by them on 31-03-2009. Under the circumstances, there was absolutely no basis for grant of any reliefs against the 2nd petitioner, the mother-in-law, in the absence of any allegations of speciﬁc instances of domestic violence by her against the 1st respondent, while the allegations against the 1st petitioner, the aged father-in-law, 5 years after the marriage are such as would not inspire conﬁdence in a judicial mind even on taking a very liberal view. While the further proceedings in the case against the petitioners, therefore, are unjustiﬁed, the order dated 24-02-2009 directing the father-in-law to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the daughter-in-law towards food and shelter under Section 19 (f) of the Act does not appear to be ex facie sustainable when the father- in-law cannot answer the description of being the adult male person who is in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person in the presence of the husband of the 1st respondent. It is primarily for the husband to answer any such claim for food and shelter and even otherwise, the order under Section 19 (f) of the Act could have been passed only on the Magistrate being satisﬁed that domestic violence has taken place and though an interim order could have been passed under Section 23 in this regard, the impugned order straight away ordered payment of money by the father-in-law as the 1st respondent is not having a place of abode and as she was not allowed to go to her job. While the relationship between the parties is admitted, the reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate for passing the order neither make any reference to any past, present or likely domestic violence at the instance of the father-in-law nor any satisfaction arrived at on the material available on record in that regard. Therefore, the order is not in compliance with the ingredients of Sections 19 and 20 of the special statute even assuming that the father- in-law could have been subjected to such a liability. The said order has no legs to stand even irrespective of the maintainability of the Domestic Violence Case against the parents-in-law. Therefore, the further proceedings in DVC.No.1 of 2009 on the ﬁle of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri, against the petitioners herein are quashed and the order dated 24-02-2009 passed therein directing the 1st petitioner to pay Rs.1000/- per month towards food and shelter to the 1st respondent herein until further orders is set aside and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16-11-2011 Ksn