The court determined that the maintainability of DVC proceedings must be assessed based on rigorous adherence to the provisions of the DVC Act, emphasizing the jurisdictional limits of the High Court in domestic violence matters.

ORDER :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Sri K.S.Rahul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, M/s. Pearl Law Associates, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ declaring the DVC No.3 of 2024 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagar is not maintainable in law insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned and consequently quash the proceedings in DVC No. 3 of 2024 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagar as against the petitioners herein in the interest of justice and pass....”

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, as per the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit by the petitioners in support of the present w rit petition, is as under:

The first petitioner is the father in law of the first respondent who is married to the son of petitioners no 1 and 2, by name Racha Srikanth and the 2^nd petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 1^st petitioner and the 3^rd petitioner is the daughter of the petitioners no 1 and 2. The marriage between the son of petitioners no 1 and 2 and the 1^st respondent was performed as per Hindu rites and customs on 11-12-2022. The 1^st respondent herein lodged a false complaint dated 11-11-2023 before the 2^nd respondent herein consequent to which DVC No. 3 of 2024,was registered on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagar against the son of petitioners no 1 and 2 and the 3^rd petitioner as well.

In the said complaint lodged by the 1st respondent before the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent prayed as under:- “a) to direcr my husband to pay an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- per month to me from the day of filing this complaint till my lifetime towards maintenance food and boarding, clothing and hospital expenses and other unforeseen expenses;

b) to direct my husband to provide shared accommodation to me with all amenities under section 19 of D.V.C Avt at his house R/o H.No. 13- 13-174, street No. 17, Tarnaka, secunderabad-500017;

c) to directing the respondent No. 1 not to stay away from me, an order entitle to me to have continued access to my personal needs U/Sec 17 of DVC Act;

d) to grant police protection for protect me from the hands of my husband and his family members Under section 18 of D.V.C. Act; and

e) Pass such other or further ordersed the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper.”

It is further the specific case of the petitioner that since no relief is claimed against the petitioner no 1, 2 and 3 in the subject complaint and further the marriage of the petitioner no 3 herein was performed on 31-10-2018 and after marriage, 1^st respondent shifted to her in laws house in Hanuma Konda in 2019 and has been working as a doctor at Hanumakonda since then and hence the subject DVC No 3 of 2024 to the extent of the petitioners hereinis not maintainable and is liable to be quashed.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A. The counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent and in particular para Nos.4