THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4943 of 2009 DATED: 17.02.2011 BETWEEEN: 1. Shanigaram Saroja, W/o.Ramadasu & 6 others. … Petitioners/Respondents 2 to 8 AND 1. The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor … Respondent 2. Shanigaram Vasantha @ Ramya …Respondent/Petitioner HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4943 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 7 are respondents 2 to 8 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Husnabad, Karimnagar District. The petitioners 1 and 2 are parents, the 3rd petitioner is sister, the petitioners 5 and 6 are brothers of the 2nd respondent’s husband. The 4th petitioner is husband of the 3rd petitioner, the 7th petitioner is stated to be an elder. But, according to the 2nd respondent, he is also related to her husband. It is contented that marriage of the 2nd respondent with her husband was dissolved in O.P.No.1 of 2005 by decree dated 21.07.2007 by the Judge, Family Court, Warangal and that, in that divorce petition, that Court observed the 2nd respondent to be a venomous lady. In D.V.C.No.1 of 2009, the 2nd respondent claimed not only monetary reliefs against her husband, but also other reliefs of protection, compensation, prohibition to enter into the portion in her occupation; and prohibition from alienating the properties available, under various sections of the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). Section 2(a) of the Act includes a present or a past existence of domestic relationship in favour of the woman, who is described as aggrieved person. It is contended that there is no proper pleading in the petition, leading to the reliefs claimed in the petition. Since provisions of Cr.P.C. are made applicable to the proceedings under the Act, strict rules of pleadings may not be imported in such proceedings. Having regard to various reliefs claimed in the case, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not necessary parties to D.V.C.No.1 of 2009. 2. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispense with the presence of the petitioners 1 to 7 herein, who are the respondents 2 to 8 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2009 during enquiry of the said case, except on the date of delivery of judgment. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 17.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4943 of 2009 DATED: 17.02.2011 ysk