ORDER:

Father-in-law and mother-in-law of a woman raised a challenge against a direction to them to pay maintenance to their daughter-in-law and granting certain other reliefs.

2. This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. questioning the correctness of order dated 21.04.2009 of learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kadapa at Rajampet in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2007 and the order dated 07.07.2007 of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandalur in D.V.C.No.2 of 2007. Daughter-in-law is respondent No.1 and State is respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts of the case need be appreciated.

Sri P.Suryanarayana and Smt. N.Lakshmi Devi belonged to different castes and were in love with each other. On 16.04.2006 they married each other on their own. The man took his wife to his house. His relations did not like the marriage, did not permit them to enter into the house and they beat them and drove them away. Two days thereafter on 18.04.2006 the brother of the man performed the marriage of the man and woman once again and this time after informing the matter to the parents of the woman. After this marriage spouses lived separately from the family members of the man. During their matrimonial life the man commenced harassment of his wife for dowry and he took away her gold ornaments and he left the house and his whereabouts were not known. In the above backdrop of facts, the woman filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2007 before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandalur claiming reliefs under Sections 18 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’). Before that Court she alleged that as against the acts of violence of her husband she complained to police on 04.09.2006 and thereafter on 20.11.2006. Her husband did not provide her food and refused to maintain her and he left the house on 06.12.2006. She filed this case as against her husband and her father-in-law and her mother-in- law showing them in the same sequence as respondent Nos.1 to 3. The learned trial Court put efforts to trace the husband of the woman and serve summons on him, but it could not materialize it. However, summons and notices were served on the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the woman and the trial Court took the view that serving summons on the members of the family was equal to service of summons to the husband of the woman and therefore it proceeded further with the matter. The father-in-law and mother-in-law together filed a counter challenging the correctness of the allegations leveled in the petition and stated that they never harassed her, never did anything towards her and she was not interested in matrimonial life and that she never lived in for a day in their house and therefore, invoking provisions under the Act, 2005 was incorrect. They further stated that respondent No.2/father-in- law is a Railway Gangman and earning Rs.4,000/- per month and he has six children and a wife to maintain and he cannot be directed to pay maintenance to daughter-in-law. They sought for dismissal of the petition.

4. Before the learned Magistrate both parties did not adduce any evidence. Thus, based on the averments in the petition and the counter and the information available from the domestic incident report filed by the protection officer, the learned trial Court decided the case and rendered its judgment stating that from the material on record it was found that the woman/ applicant before it did not have any source of livelihood and she was unable to maintain herself. Since she was unable to maintain herself and since her parents are very poor and are daily labourers, it thought it fit to direct her father-in- law/respondent No.2 therein to pay her monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-. They were further directed not to harass the applicant either physically or mentally and restrained them from disposing of any of their properties in any manner without the consent of the applicant and