The petitioner is the sole respondent in D.V.C.No.40 of 2012 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Yerram Manzil, Hyderabad. It was a petition filed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner seeks for the quashment of D.V.C.No.40 of 2012 on various grounds.

2. The 2nd respondent sought compensation of Rs.50 lakhs from the petitioner, maintenance at Rs.50,000/- per month, residential order for shelter and protection order under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the D.V. Act, for short). The petitioner is a senior IAS Officer. He is presently working as Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. His wife is also said to be a senior IAS Officer. The pair has two children.

3. The 2nd respondent submitted a petition to the Protection Officer cum Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency, Nampally, Hyderabad against the petitioner herein. In the representation describing it to be the complaint, the 2nd respondent portrayed the petitioner as her husband. She claimed:

(a) The 2nd respondent herein worked as a publisher and earned good reputation in the society. She came to know the petitioner on account of her pursuit of Telugu Literature. The petitioner developed intimacy with the 2nd respondent. He allegedly sought solace in the company of the 2nd respondent on the ground that he did not have happy conjugal life with his wife.

(b) The petitioner spent much of his time with the 2nd respondent. The petitioner proclaimed before the 2nd respondent that on account of some personal obligations and entangles, he had been living with his wife and that he was contemplating to divorce her at an appropriate time. He also promised that he would introduce the 2nd respondent as his wife to public after his divorce with his wife. The 2nd respondent proclaimed that she purchased agricultural properties at Kanigiri, Prakasam District along with the petitioner and other.

When the petitioner borrowed agricultural term loan from Andhra Bank, Sitarampuram Branch, Hanumanthunipadu Mandal, Prakasam District, the petitioner stood as co-obligant. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent cohabited together happily.

(c) The wife of the petitioner purchased Ac.12-00 cents of land in the name of her mother, Smt. K.Vimala Bai. The wife of the petitioner started sending threatening and annoying messages to the 2nd respondent. Although the 2nd respondent forwarded the messages to the petitioner, the petitioner evinced no interest in dispelling the apprehensions of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent claimed that the petitioner and she regularly stayed at the house of the 2nd respondent situate in the First Floor, Mulk Villa, Plot No.8, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

The petitioner used to resort to threatening the 2nd respondent with dire consequences on the one side and also emotionally blackmailing the 2nd respondent on the other side declaring that he would commit suicide if the 2nd respondent reveals her relationship with the petitioner. The petitioner subjected the 2nd respondent to immense mental turmoil and anguish. Emboldened by the attitude of the petitioner, his wife also started threatening and intimidating the 2nd respondent through phone calls.

(d) The petitioner got defamatory propaganda against the 2nd respondent by printing, publishing and circulating pamphlets with captions like Maya Lady Bommisetti Vatsala and referred the 2nd respondent as a land-grabber, cheat, criminal, blackmailer and characterless woman. The 2nd respondent is not able to effectively pursue her business or move in the society on account of the high influence of the petitioner in the society. In this background, she claims maintenance at Rs.50,000/- per month, monetary compensation at Rs.50 lakhs, residential order for shelter and protection order.

(e) This is the gist of the complaint.

4. The petitioner seeks for the quashment of the case in D.V.C.No.40 of 2