HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8047 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash D.V.C.No.158 of 2010 on the file of the III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the 1st respondent herein along with her son filed M.C.No.183 of 2009 on the file of the Addl. M.S.J-cum-Family Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioner herein, seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is alleged that her husband used to harass her without any reason, abused in un- parliamentary language and demand to get either a bike or gold bracelet from her parents, that being in helpless condition, she returned to her parents’ house, and that later inspite of several requests to help her in paying school fee and other maintenance expenses to her son, he refused and neglected to pay maintenance to her and her son. The said M.C. is pending for adjudication. Subsequently, the 1st respondent filed D.V.C.No.158 of 2010 on the file of the III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner, alleging that her husband is coming to her parents’ house for the last two months and harassing her and also forcing her to withdraw the maintenance case. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent, who filed the D.V.C., is not a competent person to invoke the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”). He relied on the definitions of Section 2(a) and 2(f) of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the intention of Section 2(a) of the Act introduced by the Legislature clearly indicates any woman who is or has been in domestic relationship with her husband. The said wording denotes that wife and husband lived together in the present past. Section 2(f) of the Act introduced by the Legislature also intends to mean a relationship between two persons who lived in the near past. Whereas in the present case, the 1st respondent has left the company of the petitioner for about 2 ½ years prior to filing of the D.V.C. Having perused both the Sections, this Court is of the view that the said interpretation cannot be given effect to, since whenever there is any ambiguity or any clarification is required in connection with the words of the provisions concerned, it has to be read on the basis of the intention of the legislature. The Act 43 of the Domestic Violence Act was introduced on 13.9.2005, which runs as follows: “An Act to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” On the basis of the said intention of the Legislature, the present interpretation by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not merit acceptance, as a person, who lived together as in the present case, can also invoke the provisions of the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the 1st respondent has suppressed the fact of obtaining an order of interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. in M.P.No.786 of 2009 in M.C.No.183 of 2009 on 31.10.2009 and, hence, the D.V.C. is liable to be quashed in view of Section 26(3) of the Act. It reads as under: “In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief.” This Court is also of the view that the aggrieved person, who obtained any relief in any proceedings other than proceeding under this Act, shall inform the Court of the grant of such relief. Whereas, the result of failing to do so is not mentioned in the said Act. In such a case, the failure to follow the mandatory provision, that too, which is in the nature of information to be supplied to the Judicial Officer concerned, cannot be a ground to quash the present D.V.C. As seen from the record, it is clear that the 1st respondent along with her son filed M.C.No.183 of 2009 on the file of the Addl. M.S.J-cum-Family Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioner, under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., and the said Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month by an order dated 31.10.2009 in M.P.No.786 of 2009. This clearly shows that the 1st respondent has informed the Court regarding pendency of the maintenance Case. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that this not a matter to be interfered with. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 25th August, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.P.No.8047 of 2010 (Dismissed) 25th August, 2010 CBS