DV : No claim made against the other respondents, continuing process against them is a clear abuse of law

Criminal Petition No.5900 of 2006


Mohammad Maqeenuddin Ahmed and 10 others

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
2. Mohd. Raheem Khan

Counsel for petitioners: Mr.Ch. Janardhan Reddy

Counsel for respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor
Counsel for respondent No.2: C. Nagender


This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
respondents in Domestic Violence Case (DVC) No.01 of 2006 on the file of the
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad to quash the
proceedings against them in the said case.
The second respondent herein is the father of the aggrieved person and
father-in-law of the first petitioner herein. He filed a complaint under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for
short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 6 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Rules, 2006. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and
issued summons to the petitioners. The petitioners filed the present petition
to quash the proceedings by contending that the first petitioner filed
O.S.No.112 of 2004 for restitution of the conjugal rights against the daughter
of the second respondent and the same is pending for trial. The first
petitioner is ready to take back the daughter of the second respondent and he is
not sending his daughter along with the first petitioner. The daughter of the
second respondent filed Maintenance Case No.2 of 2005 before the Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad seeking maintenance and the Court
granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month and during the course of
examination, she admitted that there is no demand of dowry by the first
petitioner. The second respondent also filed a private complaint against the
petitioners and five others under Section 498-A IPC and the same is numbered as
C.C.No.885 of 2005 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Nizamabad. The learned Magistrate taken the present case on file without taking
into consideration of pendency of the case between the parties and other
circumstances. The daughter of the second respondent is separately living since
May 2004 and from then onwards, the first petitioner has not seen her in
anywhere except in the Court. Therefore, there is no cause of action to file
the present case. The petitioners 2 to 11 are living separate from 03.09.2004
and after partition they are no way concerned with the happenings between the
first petitioner and the daughter of the second respondent. Therefore, the
proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioners.
In the present case, the petitioner/the second respondent herein sought
for the following reliefs.
The petitioner on behalf his daughter requested the Court to pass an order
awarding a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards medical expenses incurred during the
period of second child in the hospital and Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses
to the first child and Rs.1,000/- for the maintenance and expenditure of the
petitioner’s daughter and also Rs.3,000/- for his daughter and her children per
month towards maintenance.
In the petition, the petitioner mentioned that her daughter lived with the
first respondent/first petitioner herein for one year, as a result of which she
gave birth to a male child.
The petitioner has given all the customary jahez articles to the first
respondent, which is still in his custody. After the birth of the child, the
health of the petitioner’s daughter deteriorated. But the first respondent was
insisting the petitioner’s daughter to come to his house immediately after
cradle ceremony. Therefore, the differences arose between them and the
petitioner’s daughter joined the company of the first respondent against the
medical advice and when she joined the first respondent, her position was like a
maidservant. The first respondent started demanding of Rs.2,00,000/-. During
pendency of the maintenance proceedings, the petitioner’s daughter gave birth to
a female child. Despite informing the said information to the first respondent,
he did not give the cash for medical expenses and the respondents 2 to 10
abetted the first respondent to disown his liability and responsibility towards
petitioner’s daughter. At the time of the first delivery also, the first
respondent did not send any money for medical expenses or to take care of the
health and safety of the petitioner’s daughter, which amounts to physical abuse.
When there was a miscarriage of pregnancy to the daughter of the petitioner, the
first respondent has not paid to any amount towards medical expenses. When the
petitioner’s daughter is away for marital life from the first respondent on
account of his conduct, insisting for marital life by the first respondent
amounts to harassing the petitioner’s daughter and harming her health.
Therefore, the first respondent is liable to maintain his daughter. It is
further mentioned that the first respondent is frequently calling the
petitioner’s daughter on telephone and humiliating and insulting her of not
having a male child and he was demanding to bring Rs.3.00 or 4.00 lakhs if she
wants to join his company and also threatening that the first respondent will
dispose of all jahez articles and his share of the property denying the right to
the children. Hence, the present petition.
Section 20 of the Act provides for monetary reliefs, which reads as
“20. Monetary reliefs:- (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section
(1) of Section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary
relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person
and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and
such relief may include, but not limited to,-
(a) the loss of earnings;
(b) the medical expenses;
(c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property
from the control of the aggrieved person; and
(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any,
including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the
time being in force.
(2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and
reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved
person is accustomed.
(3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment
or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case
may require.
(4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under
sub-section (1) to the parties to the application and to the in charge of the
police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent
(5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person
within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1).
(6) Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of
the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a
debtor of the respondent, to directly pay the aggrieved person or to deposit
with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to
the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary
relief payable by the respondent.”

Under Section 22 of the Act also, compensation can be awarded. From the
prayer portion of the petition, it is revealed that the reliefs were sought
against the first respondent/first petitioner herein only. From the body of the
petition also, no specific allegations were made against the respondents 2 to
11/petitioners 2 to 11 herein except mentioning that at their instance, the
first petitioner was demanding money and that he was not providing money for
medical expenses and disowned the liability being abetted by petitioners 2 to
10. Since no relief is claimed against petitioners 2 to 11, it is unnecessary
to continue the proceedings against them and continuation of the proceedings
against them amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, I am inclined to
quash the proceedings against the petitioners 2 to 11.
So far as the first petitioner is concerned, the entire claim is against
him. Since there are allegations in the petition that he neglected to pay
medical expenses and also neglected to maintain her and her children, I am not
inclined to quash the proceedings against him.
In the result, the Criminal Petition in respect of the first petitioner is
dismissed and the Criminal Petition in respect of petitioners 2 to 11 is allowed
by quashing the proceedings against them in Domestic Violence Case (DVC) No.01
of 2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Nizamabad for the alleged offences.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

error: Content is protected !!