IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7744, 7749 and 7756 of 2025 Dated: 11.12.2025 Criminal Petition No.7744 of 2025 Between:

Nayini Keshav and three others … Petitioners And Smt. Adi Deeksha @ Thota Deeksha and another … Respondents Criminal Petition No.7749 of 2025 Between:

Shyamsundar Palle and another … Petitioners And Smt. Adi Deeksha @ Thota Deeksha and another … Respondents Criminal Petition No.7756 of 2025 Between:

Smt Thota Annapurna and another … Petitioners And Smt. Adi Deeksha @ Thota Deeksha and another … Respondents

COMMON ORDER

Criminal Petition No.7744 of 2025 is filed by petitioners/respondent Nos.4 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.02 of 2025 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gajwel, Siddipet District (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. Criminal Petition No.7749 of 2025 is filed by petitioners/respondent Nos.8 and 9 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.02 of 2025 on the file of the trial Court and pass such other order or orders.

3. Criminal Petition No.7756 of 2025 is filed by petitioners/respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.02 of 2025 on the file of the trial Court and pass such other order or orders.

For the sake of convenience, the facts in Crl.P.No.7744 of

2025 are discussed as hereunder:-

4. Heard Mr.K.Rajashekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2-State.

5. This Court vide order dated 09.09.2025 directed the Registry to take appropriate steps to facilitate for mediation between the parties to be conducted before Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao (retired) on 10.09.2025. On 05.11.2025, the mediation sessions were conducted but the parties did not agree for settlement of dispute. Therefore, the mediation became “unsuccessful”. Hence, this Court decided to proceed with the matter on merits.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between respondent No.1 and her husband was solemnized on 24.12.2020 as per Hindu rites and customs at Hyndava Gaurik Convention, Kompally, Hyderabad. It is stated that the parents of respondent No.1 gave gold ornaments worth 58 tulas, an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in cash, 2-3 kgs of silver articles at the time of marriage and gave Rs.1,00,000/- to the sister-in-law’s of respondent No.1. It is further stated that the couple were blessed with a baby girl out of their wedlock. It is alleged that the family members of respondent No.1’s husband subjected her to domestic violence. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 filed D.V.C. against the petitioners herein seeking protection order, residence order, monetary relief etc.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are brother-in-laws and petitioner Nos.2 and 4 are sister-in-laws of respondent No.1. He states that respondent No.1 and her husband shifted to Australia on 23.08.2021 and that the petitioners were residing in India. He avers that there is no specific instance of domestic violence or harassment alleged within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate after the said date and mere phone calls from India cannot constitute “domestic violence” under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”).

8. He contends that the petitioners being the distant relatives did not reside in the shared household at any point of time as per Section 2(s) of the Act and hence, initiating DVC proceedings against the petitioners are misconceived. He further submits that no criminal case or FIR has been registered against the petitioners and respondent No.1 had filed the DVC case basing on vague and omnibus allegations. Relying on the decisions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025, Shyamlal Devda and Others Vs.