While the first petitioner is the husband of the Swapna Sridharan, the petitioners 2 & 3 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively.

2. Mr.Velmurugan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

The first petitioner got married to the respondent/Swapna Sridharan on 29.06.2015. From July 2015 to October 2015, all of them lived jointly. There was an estranged relationship between the first petitioner and the respondent herein from November 2015 onwards and on 25.06.2016, the first petitioner had filed HMOP.No.4480 of 2016 before the learned III Additional Family Court, Chennai seeking for dissolution of his marriage. Subsequently, on 30.06.2016, the respondent had filed a complaint before the Social Welfare Officer and Domestic Violence case in DVC No.34 of 2016 before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai on 12.07.2016 against these petitioners. On 12.11.2016, a police complaint was also registered in Cr.No.9 of 2016 before the first respondent police. The proceedings in D.V.C.No.34 of 2016 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is under challenge in the present petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present Domestic Violence case is nothing but an abuse of process of law. According to the learned counsel, the respondent herein had been indulging in various acts of harassment towards the petitioners and as a matter of fact, the third petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the respondent herein as well as his tenant had given a police complaint against the respondent herein for alleged acts of harassment. The learned counsel submitted that there are no specific acts of Domestic Violence in the complaint, the petition itself deserves to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the petitioners herein had indulged in various acts of Domestic Violence prior to the marriage as well as during their matrimonial life. In view of such acts of Domestic Violence having been committed, the respondent as well as her mother had also earlier given complaints before police which is pending. Since the first petitioner herein had failed to maintain her, she is entitled to claim for maintenance and in view of the acts of Domestic Violence committed by the petitioners herein, she has sought for protection orders in the impugned proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that if at all, the petitioners disputed the averments in the complaint, it is always open to them to establish the same during the course of trial and that it is pre-matured to seek for quashing the proceedings.

6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

7. On a perusal of the complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act, the major grievance of the respondent is that she requires a separate household away from the petitioners 2 and 3 herein and for a matrimonial life without the interference of her in-laws. In the petition filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the respondent herein had narrated various incidents prior to her marriage as well as after her marriage. As a matter of fact, she has relied upon very trivial and small issues. I am unable to comprehend as to how these small incidents could be termed as 'Domestic Violence' for the purpose of seeking the relief under the Domestic Violence Act. Before venturing to deal with the case of the petitioners, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Preeti Gupta and another V. State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2010 (7) SCC 667 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had condemned that allegations of such trivial incidents and the manner in which complaints are being made in matrimonial matters. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:

“30. It is a matter of comm