Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: DV case in Smt. P.Sugunamma And Others vs State Of A.P., Rep. By Public Prosecutor on 19 January, 2015Matching Fragments
This is a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the CrPC, for brevity) by the petitioners, who are the respondents 2 to 6 in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, requesting to quash the proceedings against them in the said DV Case.
2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/applicant in the DV Case and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State. I have perused the material record. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the petitioners and the 2nd respondent as arrayed in this criminal petition.
3. The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows: The 2nd respondent herein, by name, P. Anantha Lakshmi is the wife of P.Giri Babu, the 1st respondent in the DV Case. The present petitioners are the brothers-in-law, co-sister and sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent herein had filed a case under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the Act, for brevity) seeking orders for protection under Section 18, Residence Order under Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20, custody order under Section 21 and compensation order under Section 22 of the Act. In fact, in the DV case, she had also sought prohibition of alienation of assets besides Rs.35,000/- towards monthly maintenance and a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The total amount claimed by her is Rs.50,00,000/-. She had also earlier filed a case against her husband for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and the said case is stated to be pending in the Court at Medchal.
5. POINTS:
5. (a) The case pleaded by the petitioners in support of the request for quashing the proceedings against them in the DV case, is as under:
According to the case of the 2nd respondent, while she was studying B.Com 2nd year, she fell in love with the 1st respondent in the DV case. After her marriage with the 1st respondent in the DV case, they had lived together for some time. Under the lawful wedlock, she gave birth to a girl child. According to the 2nd respondent, she was subjected to harassment by her husband and that her husband made demands for additional dowry. Her husband had threatened her that he would marry a second time if she failed to bring the dowry amount. On account of the harassment, she went away to her parents house at Hyderabad. Thus, the 2nd respondent had not made a single allegation against the present petitioners. They are living separately. However, a DV case is filed by the 2nd respondent against her husband and also the present petitioners. The learned Magistrate has taken the case on file. The marriage between the 2nd respondent and her husband is a love marriage and after their marriage in the year 2004, they both had lived separately. Except the blood relation, there is no other business or joint family relationship between the 2nd respondent on one hand and the petitioners herein on the other. All the petitioners are residents of Bheemarajuvari Street, Ongole of Prakasam District. At no point of time, the 2nd respondent and her husband on one hand and the petitioners on the other lived under one roof. There is no domestic relationship between the 2nd respondent and her husband on one hand and the petitioners on the other. At no point of time, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent had lived together in a shared household. The petitioners are facing much trouble in traveling from Ongole to Medchal, which is at a distance of more than 240 KMs. They are not involved in any offences. The continuation of DV case against them is an abuse of process of Court and law. Hence, the present petition is filed for quashing the proceedings against them.
5. (c) The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent had forcefully contended that the petitioners herein, who are the respondents 2 to 6 in the DV case are admittedly relatives of the husband of the 2nd respondent herein and that they are related by blood or consanguinity and marriage and that in the DV case it is specifically averred that the husband of the 2nd respondent had harassed the 2nd respondent by making demands for additional dowry and that he used to abuse her in filthy language and torture her, both mentally and physically and that he had taken away forcefully her pusthela thadu and had abused the 2nd respondent a number of times for not getting additional dowry and that the mediations held by the elders did not yield any results and that the husband of the 2nd respondent did not even provide food to her and used to confine her to the house by locking her in the house and that on account of the ill treatment meted out to the 2nd respondent by her husband, her health was spoiled and therefore, she was constrained to file the DV case. Thus, he has reiterated the contents in the DV case while admitting that the 5 year old daughter is with the husband of the 2nd respondent.