Partly allowed

Janapati Murali, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Aug 2012CRLP/5356/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court held that the Act does not apply to the husband's relatives who did not live in the shared household, but applies to the husband himself.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition quashed regarding Respondents 2 and 3 (relatives); dismissed regarding Respondent 1 (husband).

Janapati Murali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5356 of 2008

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash proceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2008 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, Kadapa District, against the petitioners.

¶4

The second respondent is the complainant and the petitioners are respondents in D.V.C.No.9 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in D.V.C.No.9 of 2008.

¶5

The respondents are husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law to the petitioner, who filed a complaint against them for grant of reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶6

It is alleged in the complaint filed by the complainant that after giving divorce to her first husband, she married the first respondent, that after their marriage, both of them set up a family in the house bearing D.No.9-72-2, Medari Street, Proddatur under the care of her mother, that at the time of marriage, her mother gave gold ornaments of 12 tolas and cash of Rs.1,20,000/- as dowry, that she and the first respondent lived happily for some time with the income earned by her by running a beauty parlour, that subsequently, the first respondent got addicted to bad habits and started harassing her mentally and physically for money, that on one occasion, the first respondent took her to his bother’s/second respondent’s house at Pulivendula, where the respondent Nos.

¶7

2 and 3/respondent’s brother and sister abused the complainant in foul language and necked her out of the house stating that they were

¶8

planning to get the first respondent marry again and that they took the complainant to a hotel room saying that they would bring there the first respondent, and then the second respondent and her friends beat her indiscriminately. She further alleged that even though she approached the Police concerned, no action was taken against the respondents and in spite of that, the first respondent further harassed her mentally and physically for money and threatened to kill her son begotten through her first husband for not accepting his demands. It is also alleged that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and other family members of the first respondent are not allowing her to live with the first respondent. It is also claimed by her that she is not in a position to maintain herself. Therefore, she sought for granting necessary protection orders.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents contends that ingredients of the relevant provisions of the Act are not attracted here and has sought to quash the proceedings.

¶10

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the second respondent/complainant contend that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and have sought to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶11

It is pertinent to extract the following provisions of the Act: Section 2(a) of the Act defines what is meant by aggrieved person. It reads:

¶12

Section 2(a) " aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;

¶13

Section 2(f) of the Act defines what is meant by domestic

¶14

relationship. It reads:

¶15

Section 2(f) " domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;

¶16

Section 2(g) of the Act speaks about domestic violence. It reads:

¶17

Section 2 (g) " domestic violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3;

¶18

Section 3 of the Act reads:

¶19

Section 3. Definition of domestic violence.- For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it-

¶20

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well- being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

¶21

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

¶22

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

¶23

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

¶24

The explanations under Section 3 need not be extracted. Section 2(q) of the Act defines what is meant by respondent.

¶25

It reads:

¶26

Section 2(q) " respondent" means any adult male

¶27

person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner;

¶28

Section 2(s) of the Act defines what is meant by shared household. It reads:

¶29

Section 2(s) " shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;

¶30

By virtue of the provisions enumerated above, in order to bring the case within the purview of the Act, there shall be sufficient material to the effect that the respondents are related to the complainant by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family and they lived in a shared house as contemplated. Here, it is significant to note that even according to the complainant, since the date of marriage, she and the first respondent alone lived together in a house bearing D.No.9-72-2, Medari Street, Proddatur, but not along with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are not attracted insofar as the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. However, the provisions of the Act are attracted, prima facie, insofar as the first respondent is concerned, in view of the very same admitted facts that after the marriage, the complainant and the

¶31

first respondent set up a family at the house mentioned above and other relevant ingredients are satisfied. For the reasons stated above, the criminal petition need to be allowed insofar the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned and to be dismissed insofar the first respondent is concerned.

¶32

Hence, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2008 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, Kadapa District, are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein are concerned and is dismissed insofar as the first petitioner is concerned.

¶33

____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶34

09^th August, 2012 GHN

Janapati Murali, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janapati Murali, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Narsimha Chary, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Satyanarayana Vs Inspector of Police

Guttula Satyanarayana Vs State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor

Kathi Peddanna, Vs M/s. Sri Rama Eicher Agencies , Tadpatri

Narayanasetti Subrahmanyam, Vs State of A.P.

M/S Swapna Agencies Vs State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor