1. Petitioners have sought to quash the entire proceedings pending against them before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court I, Bengaluru under Section 12 of Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Crl.Misc.No.259/2011.

2. Petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.2 is the brother-in-law and petitioner No.3 is the sister-in-law of the complainant/respondent-Smt. V. Kalaivani.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-Sri Janardhana. G. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. D. Bhuvaneshwari is absent.

4. The respondent herein filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner herein (accused No.1) for protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19 and monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act. The prayer made by her reads as follows;

“(i) Protection order under section 18

a. Prohibit the respondents from alienating his assets, so as to defeat the rights of the petitioner herein.

b. Prohibit the respondents from causing violence to the dependants, other relatives or any person who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence.

c. Prohibit the respondents from committing any other act as specified in the protection order.

(ii) Residence order under section 19

a. An order restraining the respondents from dispossessing or throwing the petitioner and her minor daughter from the shared household.

b. Alienating/disposing/encumbering the shared household.

c. It is submitted that the respondents have abandoned the petitioner from the matrimonial/shared household and she was forced to stay away from the respondents since May 2011, hence there may be a direction to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- and Rs.60,000/- towards rent and advance amount respectively so as to enable the petitioner to acquire similar accommodation.

(iii) Monetary relief’s under section 20 That an order be passed against the respondent directing him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-

(iv) Monetary relief’s under section 20 The petitioner estimates that a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month is required by her and her daughter to meet the expenditures incurred towards food, clothing, medications, and household expenses for herself”.

5. The material allegations made in the petition are that she married accused No.1 on 15.11.2007. On 02.09.2008, she gave birth to female child. After giving birth to the child, her husband never took her and the child out of the house either to a movie, hotel or park at any moment. On account of the attitude of her husband, the petitioners and the other accused decided to arrange separate house for her and accordingly paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards the advance to a rented house and thereafter, she, her daughter and her husband shifted to a rented house situated at No.334/1, 8th main, 7th cross, Ramachandrappa Layout, Kariyanapalya, St. Thomas Town post, Bengaluru-560084.

6. Further allegations made in the complaint read as under:

“while things stood thus that on 22.10.2011 my husband took the child and left her in my in-law’s house and never returned. When I attempted to call my husband he used to avoid speaking to me. I waited for a period of 4 days, thereafter I went to my in-law’s house to get my daughter. But, my mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law assaulted me and abused me in filthy language”.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless. The child is in the custody of the respondent and visiting right has been granted to her husband in M.C.No.805/2012. The allegations made in para Nos.13 and 14 if read as a whole, would indicate that the respondent, her child and accused No.1 started residing separately in a rented house. If so, the allegations made by her in para No.14 that accused No.1 namely her husband took the child and left her in her in-law’s house, appears to be highly improbable. It is not her case that the child continu