IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3119 of 2010 DATE:07.04.2010 Between: Podamacherty Sridhar and another …… Petitioners/Accused. And: P.Rajinika and another …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3119 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2 are brothers. The 1st respondent/complainant is wife of the 1st petitioner. She filed D.V.C. N.3 of 2009 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners for necessary reliefs. The petitioners are seeking quashing of proceedings in D.V.C.No.3 of 2009. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that previously at the instance of the 1st respondent, the police filed C.C. No.733 of 2007 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad against the petitioners 1 and 2 and their mother alleging offence punishable under Section 498/34 I.P.C. and that therefore the present domestic violence case is not maintainable in law. C.C. No.733 of 2007 is filed for punishing A-1 to A-3 therein for committing offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Whereas D.V.C. No.3 of 2009 is filed by the 1st respondent for reliefs under Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which are all in the nature of civil proceedings. She also claimed maintenance and other expenses with a charge over the family property. 3) There is no prohibition in law for simultaneous trial or enquiry in C.C. No.733 of 2007 and D.V.C.No.3 of 2009. Relief claimed in criminal case is punitive in nature. Whereas reliefs claimed in domestic violence case are protective in nature. 4) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that except the 2nd petitioner being owner of his share in the family house property, there is no other relief which can be claimed against the 2nd petitioner. The 1st respondent apprehends that her daughter may be taken away from her custody by the petitioners. She also apprehends that the property in respective of which she is seeking charge may be sold away. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd petitioner is not a necessary party to the domestic violence case. It is a matter in which the lower Court has to make enquiry and pass necessary orders as against both the petitioners herein. 5) In case the lower Court granted any interim relief regarding maintenance payable to the 1st respondent, then it is open to the petitioners to question such order by filing necessary appeal before the appellate Court. I see absolutely no merits in this petition. 6) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J April 7, 2010 KSH