2 Respondent No.1 And Her Minor ... vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 3488 AP

         THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.7197 of 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

seeking quashment of proceedings in D.V.C.No.40 of 2018 on

the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of

Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore.

2 Respondent No.1 and her minor daughter No.2 are the

applicants in the above said D.V.C. Respondent No.3 is the

State.

3. Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for

petitioners, Kum Grandhi Priyanka, learned counsel

representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor representing respondent No.3 submitted arguments.

4. Since D.V.C.No.40 of 2018 is sought to be quashed, it is

relevant to notice what is there in that application.

5. An aggrieved woman and her minor daughter filed the

said D.V.C. under Sections 12, 23(2), 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

short, 'the Act, 2005'). The reliefs claimed in the said

application are extracted here:

(a) To grant protection orders prohibiting the acts of Domestic Violence Right against 1st respondent and his family members from repeating any of the acts of Domestic Violence;

(b) Directing 1st respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) per month to aggrieved person and 2nd petitioner i.e., minor daughter towards food, cloth day to day needs as per the social status of my husband;

(c) Directing 1st respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses;

(d) Directing 1st respondent to provide share in the house and to allow the 1st petitioner i.e. aggrieved person to reside in his house or secure the same level of alternative accommodation at Adapareddypalli Village, Tirupathi Rural, Tirupathi and pay rent, electricity bill and water charges of Rs.15,000/- p.m. as per the social status of 1st respondent u/s 19(1) of the D.V.C. Act 2005 and also direct the Station House Officer of concerned police station at IV Town P.S., Nellore to give protection to 1st petitioner;

(e) Directing 1st respondent to return my Stridhanam given at the time of marriage, that is dowry of

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- towards purchase of car and gold ornaments weighing 50 sovereigns and also Rs.5,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and other household articles;

(f) Directing 1st respondent to pay compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for having subjecting aggrieved person to harass of physical and mental with his illegal demand and causing irreparable loss to aggrieved person and to 2nd petitioner minor daughter; and

(g) Directing 1st respondent to pay the alimony of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores only) to 1st petitioner i.e., aggrieved person and to 2nd petitioner i.e., minor daughter throughout life if 1st petitioner do not to restore the marital fold.

6. The reliefs claimed in the application which are extracted

above would indicate that all the reliefs have been claimed as

against respondent No.1 therein and only protection order is

sought as against respondent No.1 as well as his family

members. Sri M.Parasurami Reddy and Smt. M.Vijaya Kumari

are spouses. They have four sons. One such son is

Sri M.Prathap Reddy. Smt. Kalathuru @ Mummireddygari

Srivani married that Sri M.Prathap Reddy. They are Hindus

and the marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu

rites and customs on 09.10.2011 at Tiruchanur near Tirupathi.

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

During their wedlock they were blessed with a daughter by

name Kalathuru @ Mummireddygari Adhyasri, who is shown

aged four years by the time D.V.C.No.40 of 2018 was filed. The

wife and her daughter as aggrieved persons presented the said

D.V.C. as against the husband of the first applicant and his

siblings and parents showing them as respondent Nos.1 to 5

therein. It is those respondents in that D.V.C. who have moved

the present criminal petition.

7. A perusal of the D.V.C. application would show that the

aggrieved woman's husband and in-laws and the siblings of her

husband all are natives of Adapareddypalli Village, Tirupathi

Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. By the time the D.V.C. was

filed the husband of the aggrieved woman has been working as

a Software Engineer at Houstan, Texas, United States of

America. Aggrieved woman's in-laws are living at their native

places. Siblings of the aggrieved woman's husband are also

employed and Sri M.Suresh Reddy is working at Bangalore and

Sri M.Prasad Reddy working at Hyderabad or Tirupathi. The

application in D.V.C. also indicates that subsequent to the

marriage the spouses lived for some time at Adapareddypalli

Village and thereafter they lived at Mysore of Karnataka State

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

and thereafter they went Abroad and lived together at Houstan,

Texas, United States of America. Finally the aggrieved woman

and her child came back to India and they have been living with

the woman's parents at Aditya Nagar, Nellore in SPSR Nellore

District. D.V.C. was filed at Nellore. All the above facts are not

in dispute.

8. The application in D.V.C. indicates about payment of

dowry and other lanchanams as were demanded by the groom's

family. It then narrates about the husband's greed of money

and his mental and physical abuses as against his wife for her

failure to bring additional money and dowry. At more than one

place it mentions about the cruel attitude of the husband and

how he used to starve the wife and child and how he used to

insult the wife and how he used to kick her in the stomach and

how the bad conduct of husband continued even at United

States of America. It then refers to a legal notice dated

22.02.2017 issued by the husband to her demanding for

restitution of conjugal rights. It then narrates about the

aggrieved person lodging a written information with police on

10.04.2017 and the failure of the police in taking further action.

At para No.10 of the application it is specifically mentioned that

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

despite all the troubles she underwent, the aggrieved woman

intends to maintain her marital relationship with her husband.

At para No.3 of the application it is stated that after

solemnization of marriage on 09.10.2011 the aggrieved woman

joined with her husband at Adapareddypalli Village which was

the matrimonial home and lived there for few days. In the

context of the above referred facts, the aggrieved woman sought

for herself and her daughter the various reliefs that are enlisted

in the earlier paragraphs of this order.

9. Coming to the parents and siblings of her husband, at

para No.4 of the application, the aggrieved woman states that

respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein, who are siblings of her

husband, used to visit Adapareddypalli Village during weekends

when she was brought by her husband from Mysore to the

native place. It is on those occasions, the siblings of her

husband used to harass her for money and additional dowry.

10. Coming to her in-laws, the aggrieved person at para No.5

of her application in D.V.C. mentions that all the cruelty and

bad conduct of her husband used to be informed by her to her

in-laws, but they used to support their son and all of them

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

together demanded her to bring additional dowry. It is with

those allegations, the D.V.C. was filed seeking various reliefs.

11. Challenging the maintainability of the said D.V.C., the

husband and his siblings and parents filed the present criminal

petition on the following grounds:

That the D.V.C. is not maintainable as the learned trial

Court failed to see that petitioner Nos.2 to 5, who are parents

and siblings of 1st petitioner never lived together with the

aggrieved woman and they lived elsewhere and therefore they

never had a shared household. That the 1st petitioner lastly

resided in United States of America along with aggrieved woman

and her child and now the aggrieved woman and her child are

living at Nellore and that all the allegations are relatable to

Section 498-A I.P.C. but she filed the present D.V.C. The

provisions of the Act, 2005 do not apply, but in ignorance of this

the learned Magistrate has taken the case on file and therefore,

the proceedings are to be quashed.

12. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1

and 2 submit that the aggrieved woman is in domestic

relationship with petitioner Nos.2 to 5, who are family members

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

along with her husband/1st petitioner and the allegations in the

application indicate domestic violence and therefore, the

application was properly entertained by the learned Magistrate

and no interference is required.

13. The following point fall for consideration:

"Whether in the given facts and circumstances

continuance of proceedings in D.V.C.No.40 of 2018 would

amount to abuse of process of law?

POINT:

14. The allegations as far as 1st petitioner being the husband

of the aggrieved woman are concerned, it is an admitted case of

marital relationship between them as spouses and they lived at

different places and the applicant in her application indicated

various forms of domestic violence. The question whether

learned Magistrate at Nellore has territorial jurisdiction or not

need not be decided here since by the terms of Section 27 of the

Act, 2005 various Courts at which proceedings under that

enactment could be taken up by the aggrieved woman. As long

as the aggrieved woman claimed monetary reliefs including

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

maintenance allowance, those have to be answered by the

husband. Necessary hearing has to take place before the

learned Magistrate as far as 1st petitioner-Sri M.Prathap Reddy

is concerned. Therefore, there is no ground to quash the

proceedings as far as the 1st petitioner is concerned.

15. Coming to petitioner Nos.2 to 5, the undisputed facts

available from the record and the contents of application in

D.V.C. itself indicate that these petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have not

been living under one roof along with the aggrieved woman and

her child. It is in this context the question of domestic

relationship has been argued on both sides. Section 2(f) of the

Act, 2005 defines "domestic relationship" as mentioned below:

"2(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;"

16. Section 2(s) of the Act, 2005 defines "shared household"

as mentioned below:

"2(s) "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household."

17. The term shared household is hinged on the concept of

intentional residence of the parties in one household. Mere

fleeting or casual living does not make one a shared household

vide Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja1 and Rajnesh v.

Neha2. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioners cited the

judgment of the then composite High Court in P.Sugunamma

v. State of A.P.3. Referring to a similar situation where

relatives of the husband have not been living along with the

spouses but living elsewhere with periodical or sporadic visits, it

was held that where any person who is so related who has been

(2021) 1 SCC 414

(2021) 2 SCC 324

2015 (2) ALD 305

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

not living or had not lived together at any point of time with the

aggrieved person in a shared household they cannot be said to

be in domestic relationship. To the similar effect is the law spelt

out by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Prakash Vinayak

Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra4. The averments in the

application in D.V.C. of the aggrieved person do indicate that

since the time of marriage it is the spouses who lived together

under one roof at different places at all times and the remaining

respondents who are their family members have been living at

different other places and in their own respective houses. It is

on occasions they paid visits to the spouses. Such occasional

visits were only meant for those occasions and they were never

intended and could not be intended to be visits making one to

think that they are holding shared household. The definition of

"aggrieved person" under Section 2(a) of the Act, 2005 requires

a domestic relationship and domestic relationship as defined in

Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005 means a relationship between two

persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in

a shared household. The facts mentioned in the application in

2020 Lawsuit (Bom) 1605

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

D.V.C. clearly show that, that domestic relationship is absent

between the aggrieved woman on one hand and petitioner Nos.2

to 5 on the other hand. It is in that view of the matter, one has

to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for

petitioners that without there being any case disclosed by the

application in D.V.C. permitting the learned Magistrate to take

up further proceedings against them would be abuse of process

of Court.

18. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 cited

Giduthuri Kesari Kumar v. State of Telanga5. That was also

a case decided by the erstwhile composite High Court. The

point that was considered in that case was about

maintainability of a quash petition in domestic violence case. A

learned Judge of this Court concluded that a quash petition

could be maintained however they could never be quashed on

the simple ground that the family members are unnecessarily

roped in the case. This judgment does not refer any principle of

law about shared house hold and domestic relationship

contrary to what is already noticed. Therefore, the contentions

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this regard do not have any merit.

The point is answered accordingly.

19. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

Proceedings in D.V.C.No.40 of 2018 pending before learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition and

Excise Offences, Nellore as against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 -

Sri M.Parasurami Reddy, Smt. M.Vijayakumari, Sri M.Suresh

Reddy and Sri M.Prasad Reddy stand quashed. So far as

petitioner No.1 - Sri M.Prathap Reddy is concerned, the present

petition stands dismissed and the learned Magistrate shall

proceed further in accordance with law and dispose of the case

as expeditiously as possible.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 17.07.2023 Ivd

2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.7197 of 2019

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7197 of 2019

Date: 17.07.2023

Ivd