JUDGMENT

Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crl. Misc. No. 104/2019 registered invoking Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. M.T. Nanaiah, appearing for Sri. M.R.C. Manohar and the learned counsel Smt. R. Priyanka, appearing for the respondent.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

Before embarking upon the consideration of the issue on its merits, I deem it appropriate to narrate the relationship between the parties.

Respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner and is the complainant in the case at hand. The 1st petitioner is the husband, 2nd petitioner is mother-in-law, 3rd petitioner is father-in-law and 4th petitioner is brother-in-law of the complainant.

4. The first petitioner and the complainant get married on 30-11-2010 and it transpires that from the wedlock, the couple has a child. Differences arose between the 1st petitioner and the respondent-complainant and the relationship got strained. Several proceedings are pending between the parties. The present proceedings are initiated by the complainant by registering a complaint invoking Section 12 of the Act, alleging mental and physical harassment meted out by all the members of the family. The proceedings have gone on since then, and on registration of the said complaint, the petitioners are before this Court, in the present petition.

5. This Court having entertained the matter has granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings. Therefore, the case has not progressed thereafter.

6. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioners would submit that there are no allegations that would touch upon the ingredients of the offence punishable under the Act. The difference of opinion between the husband - petitioner No. 1 and the wife - respondent with regard to several issues is made the subject matter of the complaint. One such issue is, payment or default in payment of the EMI for an apartment which the couple had jointly purchased. All other incidents of mental harassment narrated in the complaint would not touch upon the offences punishable under the Act.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent would submit that all the petitioners have consistently harassed the respondent which would need a trial for them to come out clean.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and are therefore, not reiterated. The respondent files an application under Section 12 of the Act, alleging that the petitioners have all indulged in meting out mental and physical harassment to the complainant, which according to the complainant would become offences punishable under the Act.

10. A perusal of the complaint would not indicate any offence against petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant, except stating that on a particular day, all the petitioners entered the house of the respondent and tried to take away the child for performing the Birthday of the child, without inviting the complainant and all other instances and cruel behaviour is attributed only to the husband.

11. Since the entire allegations are against the husband on several differences of opinion between the couple, the husband - petitioner No. 1 will have to come out clean in the trial. There is no warrant of interference in the proceedings against petitioner No. 1.

12. Insofar as it pertains to the other members of the family they are, petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the only allegation made is that, they have all instigated the husband to behave in a particular manner. It is only vague and omnibus allegations against other members of the family. In my consider