Domestic violence claims require evidence of a domestic relationship and shared household under the Domestic Violence Act.

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-

respondent No.5 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in D.V.C.No.18 of 2022 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Suryapet.

02. Heard Mr. Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent No.5 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

03. The gist of the case, in brief, is that the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner was performed in the year 2020. She joined the conjugal society of the petitioner No.1 at Suryapet and for three months of their marriage, they looked her after well and thereafter, her in laws made her to do all the household works without the help of any one. Later they started harassing her for want of additional dowry from her parents and she informed the same to her mother and her mother used to come and give amounts demanded by them and requested the petitioners to look after her welfare with love and care. After that herself and her husband lived at Hyderabad in the house of the petitioner-respondent No.5 and at that time also they insisted her mother to arrange the household articles to them.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is sister in law of respondent No.2 and the allegation against her is that she stays in America and used to harass by making phone calls demanding that she also wants dowry as adapaduchu and when the mother of the respondent No.2 herein arranged for Rs.1 lakh, the petitioner herein refused to take the amount and demanded Rs.10 lakhs. It is further alleged that when the respondent No.2 gave birth to a female child, all the petitioners harassed her and the present petitioner demanded additional dowry of Rs.4 lakhs and that she said if she fails to give so, leave her and her infant child.

05. To substantiate his case learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and others vs.

State of Telangana, [2015 SCC Online Hyd 18], held in para 14 as under-

“14) To sum up the findings:

i) Since the remedies under D.V.Act are civil remedies, the Magistrate in view of his powers under Section 2 8(2) of D.V Act shall issue notice to the parties for their first appearance and shall not insist for the attendance of the parties for every hearing and in case of non-appearance of the parties despite receiving notices, can conduct enquiry and pass exparte order with the material available. It is only in the exceptional cases where the Magistrate feels that the circumstance require that he can insist the presence of the parties even by adopting coercive measures.

ii) In view of the remedies which are in civil nature and enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, the quash petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. on the plea that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties are not maintainable. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2 (f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V. case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.

06. He further relied upon decision held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal , [2025 SCC Online SC 1158] , wherein the Hon’ble Court held in para 38 and 39 as under-

38. Before we part with this Judgment, we must mention here that one of us (Abhay S.Oka,J) is a party to a Judgment dated 27^nd October, 2016 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition 2473 of 2016 in which the v