SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(AP) 550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.
Yadlapalli Mary Mani – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Another – Respondents
CRL. P. No. 9104 of 2010
Decided On : 21-12-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S. Subba Reddy.
For the Respondent: Davuluri Narasimha Rao.

Important Point—In any case domestic relationship must be in existence at relevant time when aggrieved person has been subjected to any act of domestic violence.

Headnote:Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Sections 12, 17, 18, 20 and 23—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Domestic violence—When petitioner is not in domestic relationship with 2nd respondent – aggrieved person, there is no justification on the part of 2nd respondent to implicate petitioner who is her daughter-in-law—As petitioner had not been living or lived with 2nd respondent/ complaint, case cannot be filed under the Act as it does not fulfill conditions required under Section 2(f) of the Act—It is a sheer misuse of protection guaranteed under the Act—Criminal proceedings quashed.

       Result—Criminal Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner pending in D.V.C. No. 14 of 2011 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, under Sections 12, 17, 18, 20 and 23 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The 2nd respondent herein is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent filed D.V.C. No. 14 of 2011, on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem under Sections 12, 17, 18, 20 and 23 of the Act seeking protection against her son and the petitioner herein, who is her daughter-in-law, for evicting her from the schedule house and to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance under different heads.

3. The case of the 2nd respondent in the complaint is that they have two sons and two daughters and got them educated and performed their marriages. The petitioner herein is her daughter-in-law. Under a will dated 22.1.1976 the husband of the 2nd respondent acquired the house site and in the year 2000, she constructed the RCC house with D. No. 3037 situate at Dandagarra village. She got educated her son, who is the 1st respondent in the DVC, and he secured employment in Indian Armed forces at the age of 22 years and presently working in 7 RR DC, Artillery Canter, Nasik road, Nasik. In the month of January, 2010, the 2nd respondent and her husband stayed with her son for few months at Nasik. On the representation of her son that he has to submit security to his employer, the 2nd respondent and her husband, executed a relinquishment deed on 29.4.2010 for the schedule house, in favaour of her son. They performed the marriage of their son on 2.9.2010 with the petitioner herein.

4. The allegations of the 2nd respondent is that after execution of relinquishment deed, her son, left her and her husband at Dandagarra village and went to Nasik, where he is working. He neglected to look after the complainant and further demanding the 2nd respondent to vacate the house, as he intended to sell the same. He left his wife, the petitioner herein, at Avupadu village where his in-law’s are residing, and instructed her to make the complainant and her sick husband to vacate the house. So the petitioner used to come to the house of the complainant and demand her to vacate the said house and also harassing the complainant to see her end in the event of staying in the said house. On the ground that as they have no source of income and suffering with different ailments due to old age, and as their son is neglecting them by not providing them any maintenance and the petitioner is regularly visiting their house and threatening them to vacate the schedule house, accordingly the 2nd respondent filed the complaint under the provisions of the Act, noted above, seeking protection from their son and daughter-in-law, the petitioner herein, and for maintenance. Seeking to quash the said proceedings pending on the file of the trial court, the present petition has been filed.

5. This court while ordering notice before admission on 17.12.2012, initially granted interim stay for a period of four weeks and subsequently on 13.11.2013, extended the same until further orders.

6. The 1st respondent – State and the 2nd respondent – complainant, have not filed any counter affidavits.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly raised two contentions viz., (1) that the 2nd respondent will not fall within the definition of “aggrieved person” as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, since there is no domestic relationship between the 2nd respondent and the petitioner. He submits that under Section 2(f) of the Act, to have domestic relation, the two persons i.e., aggrieved person and the other person i.e., the respondent, on whom the allegations are leveled, who are related by blood, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living togeth


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top