PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. In Crl.M.C.No.46/2013 Babita is aggrieved by the order absolving Ved Prakash and Hira Devi in proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014 her grievance is to anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 to 5 who are: Ram Prasad, his wife Laxmi Devi, Ved Prakash and his wife Hira Devi.

2. The marriage between Babita @ Kavita and Manoj Kumar was solemnized on May 01, 2006 as per Hindu Rites and Customs in New Delhi and they proceeded to reside at the matrimonial home being House No.278, IInd Floor, Masjid Moth, New Delhi-110049.

3. It is the case of Babita that at the time she married Manoj it was represented that Ram Prasad and Laxmi Devi are his parents and Ved Prakash and Smt. Hira Devi were introduced as the brother and sister-in-law respectively of Smt. Laxmi Devi. At the time of marriage, the complainant’s father gave various articles and a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as part of stridhan to Ram Prasad and Laxmi Devi. That she was repeatedly beaten and abused by the respondents collectively for having failed to fulfill their demand for dowry in sum of Rs.15 lakhs. Ved Prakash and Hira Devi would regularly visit the matrimonial home and humiliate and give beatings to the complainant for having failed to give birth to a son and for bringing inadequate dowry. She was subjected to beatings and mental torture at the hands of the respondents on May 09, 2007, July 21, 2008, September 18, 2011 and October 16, 2011. On August 20, 2008, she discovered that the respondents had concealed material information about their identities. She discovered that her husband was actually the adopted son of Sh. Ram Prasad, and Smt. Laxmi Devi and that Sh. Ved Prakash and Smt. Hira Devi, who were introduced as relatives of Smt. Laxmi Devi were the biological parents of her husband. On September 18, 2011, the respondents threatened to kill her and she was forced to leave her matrimonial home.

4. Babita had filed a complaint No.80/12 dated December 24, 2011 before the Metropolitan Magistrate seeking reliefs of maintenance and damages for mental distress under Section 20(d) and Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. FIR No.100/2012 dated June 07, 2012 was also registered for offence punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Mansarovar Park, New Delhi on the complaint lodged by Babita.

5. Pertaining to the complaint lodged under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and perusal of the allegations therein, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate deleted Sh. Ved Prakash and Smt.Hira Devi from the array of respondents vide order dated February 29, 2012 which order has been confirmed by the learned ASJ, Kakardoma Court vide order dated November 29, 2012 holding that there is no domestic relationship between the complainant and Sh. Ved Prakash and Smt. Hira Devi who were not even residing with the complainant in the matrimonial home. The allegations against Ved Prakash and Hira Devi have been found to be vague.

6. In the decision reported as 2010 (3) CC Cases (HC) 543 Harbans Lal Malik Vs. Payal Malik, in paras 9 to 20 it was observed as under:-

“9. The first issue arising in this case is whether an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act made by the respondent could have been entertained against all the respondents (petitioners herein) as arrayed in her application and whether the Court without discussing the domestic and legal relationship of different respondents with the petitioner, could have passed an order against the petitioners making them jointly and severally liable to pay maintenance of Rs.50,000/-.

10. Under Section 12, an “aggrieved person” can file an application to Magistrate against the respondents. The respondent has been defined under Section 2(q). The definition reads as under: “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relat