JUDGMENT

V. Srishananda, J. - This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the respondents No.4 to 14 in D.V.C.No.914/2016 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati.

2. Heard Sri. K.L. Patil as well as Sri. G.R. Turamari, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 through V.C.

3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the petition are as under: A petition came to be filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'Act') contending that the present petitioners along with in-laws and husband drew away the second respondent-Smt. Shweta who is wife of Adarsh Shet from the matrimonial home and seeking relief of compensation to the tune of Rs.1.30 lakhs and directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2.00 lakhs and to punish the respondents for having committed offence under Domestic Violence Act and Dowry Prohibition Act and such other orders.

4. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are the relatives of the husband of second respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the scope of Section 12 would not per se contemplate arraigning in the relatives of the husband of the second respondent, as admittedly, they are no way connected with the petition averments and this is not a prosecution under Section 498A of IPC. Sri. K.L. Patil also submits that the present petitioners are admittedly residing away from the shared household as is defined under Section 2(s) of D.V. Act and as such, there was no commission of domestic violence by these petitioners insofar as the second respondent is concerned. Hence, petition against the present petitioners who are relatives of the husband of second respondent needs to be quashed.

6. The learned Magistrate without looking into these aspects of the matter has proceeded to issue notice to all the respondents, which is under challenge in this petition.

7. Per contra, Sri. G.R. Turamari submitted that the relatives of husband of second respondent-Shweta also had strained relationship with second respondent and her husband and as such, they also contributed for domestic violence. He also submits irrespective of the fact that they are residing elsewhere; they are necessary parties in this petition inasmuch as they also instigated the husband of the second respondent in imparting the domestic violence and therefore sought for dismissal of the criminal petition.

8. Learned High Court Government Pleader also supported the impugned order and stated that the proviso 2(q) of the Act, permits the relatives of the husband can also be proceeded under the Act.

9. After hearing the parties, the only point that would arise for consideration is :

1. Whether the petitioners have make out a case for quashing the proceedings against them in D.V.C No.914/2016 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati?

10. The answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following : REASONS

11. Admittedly, the petition is under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The relief claimed in the petition are as under :

1. Pay the petitioner a compensation of Rs.1,30,00,000/-(one Crore Thirty-lakhs rupees only) approximately calculated as per the above said paragraphs.

2. Direct to respondent No.1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs rupees only) per month.

3. Punish to respondents for committed offence under domestic violence act and Dowry Prohibition Act.

12. In order to appreciate the case on hand, it is just and necessary for this court to cull out the definitions of words "aggrieved person", "domestic relationship with the respondent" as is found in the statute, which reads as under:

2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;

(f) "domestic rela