HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.1171 OF 2009 DATE: 11.11.2010 BETWEEN: Mohd.Nayeemuddin and others .. Petitioners And State of A.P. and others ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.1171 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash all the proceedings in D.V.C.No.41 of 2008 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. I have heard Smt C.Jayashree Sarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3. No representation is made for the second respondent. The second respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the Act) stating that her marriage was performed with the first petitioner on 11.09.1998 at Hyderabad as per Muslim rites and customs. Subsequently, both of them left for Muscat by which time the first petitioner was working there. Out of wedlock, three female children were born to the second respondent. The contention of the second respondent is that she had been working as Nurse in Muscat and getting a salary of Rs.25,000/- and the first petitioner had been taking away the entire salary and was spending the same. She was totally neglected and she was not provided with proper food and clothing. It has also been contended that the first petitioner used to beat her mercilessly. It has been contended inter alia that the first petitioner and the second respondent came to India in May, 2006 and at the intervention of the well-wishers, a settlement was entered into between the first petitioner and the second respondent, during the course of which the first petitioner agreed before the elders to treat the second respondent in most civilized manner. It is also alleged that by fraudulent means, without the consent and knowledge of the second respondent, the first petitioner pronounced Talaq on 07.06.2006. Basing on the above mentioned grounds, the second respondent prayed various reliefs, including the maintenance and compensation in her application filed before the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel appearing for the first petitioner would submit that even according to the second respondent all the alleged incidents took place prior to coming into force of the provisions of the Act and, in fact, the second respondent was not living in domestic relationship with the first petitioner and both of them have been residing separately in Muscat after divorce and that she received an amount of Rs.76,500/-before the elders towards full and final settlement of her claims, including meher amount. The divorce certificate dated 20.06.2006 issued by the Qazi, Qile Mohammed Nagar Bara Mahal shows that she accepted the divorce with her free will and passed a receipt for Rs.76,500/- in full satisfaction of her claims. Notices were taken to the address given by the second respondent at Hyderabad by the petitioners and they could not be served since, in fact, she was residing in Muscat. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that only with a view to harass the petitioners, the second respondent filed an application under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also filed a case under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The third respondent, who entered appearance through counsel, fully supported the version of the petitioners. Even according to the third respondent, the first petitioner pronounced Talaq, but she says that it was by fraudulent means. She did not mention how the first petitioner played fraud to pronounce Talak against the second respondent. Several allegations have been made without specifying any particular incident. The entire application does not contain any details of the allegations, which are very vague. A perusal of the application filed by the second respondent itself reveals that the allegations mentioned therein are ex facie false and very vague. Since she has been living in Muscat and in view of her admission that Talaq was pronounced by the first petitioner and as per various allegations mentioned in the application that no incident took place at Hyderabad and further the second respondent and the petitioner are residing separately, the petition, therefore, is not maintainable under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the learned Magistrate. This Court considers that no case is made out and if the case is allowed to stand it is nothing but abuse of process of law and the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in D.V.C.No.41 of 2008 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. The criminal petition is allowed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 11.11.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.1171 OF 2009 DATE: 11.11.2010