This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners, who are respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in D.V.C. No. 1 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, Kadapa District. The first respondent herein, who is the complainant (herein after called as the complainant) in the above D.V.C., filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act.

2. According to the complainant, her marriage with M.S. Mahender Reddy son of the first and second petitioners and the brother of the third petitioner herein was performed on 29.06.1997. According to the complainant, huge amount to a tune of Rs.1.00 crore was given to the petitioners apart from several other articles. After the marriage, the spouses lived in United States of America for some time. There was harassment by the husband, even after the birth of a child. Even after they returned to India, there was harassment by the husband, as well as parents-in-law, including the sister-in-law. It is the case of the complainant that not only she, but her father was assaulted by the present petitioners. In the D.V.C., she sought reliefs of separate residence, compensation of Rs.8.00 crores and Rs.1.50 Lakhs towards house hold expenses.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken to be true also, the provisions of the Act would not attract against present petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, as under Section 2 (q) of the Act, women are not liable and the reliefs that are now being claimed by the petitioners can be granted against the husband only and not from any other member of the family, including the present second petitioner, father-in-law. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the complainant has also filed a case against the petitioners and her husband under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.77 of 2008 of Pulivendula Police Station that was registered on 12.6.2008, which perhaps is a counter blast to the report given by the second petitioner herein at Varthuru Police Station, Bangalore City on 6.6.2008.

4. A reading of the complaint given to the Protection Officer would show that the complainant was continuously harassed at USA, as well as in India, in several ways. While they were in USA, the present petitioners - parents-in-law and sister-in-law were instigating her husband to harass her and after they came to India also, all the family members of the husband, including the sister-in- law harassed her and they even assaulted her and her father. In the DVC, the complainant claimed protection under Section 18; provision for residence under Section 19; maintenance under Section 20 and compensation under Section 22 of the Act.

5. In the counter filed on behalf of the first respondent, the allegations in her complaint are repeated mostly and it is contended that the acts of the present petitioners and her husband attract the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; proviso to Section 2 (q) makes women also liable, her husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law are liable under this Act. According to her, the third petitioner herein, her sister-in-law, used to influence her husband and other family members; she along with her parents instigated and abetted physical violence against her and that criminal cases by both sides have nothing to do with the present case.

6. Learned Senior Counsel - Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the petitioners contends that in view of the provisions of Section 2 (q) of the Act, women are not liable and for that reason the proceedings against them have to be quashed. It is the next contention of the learned senior counsel that the relief claimed in the DVC cannot be claimed against any of the petitioners and for that reason also the proceedings have to be qu