mainly attributed to 1st respondent. It is averred that some time after marriage the 1st respondent started harassing her for additional dowry and he used to behave in cruel manner with petitioner No.1 and insulted her and did not show love and affection towards the petitioners. He was addicted to alcohol and used to come home late in nights and started quarrelling with the complainant and abused her in filthy language and beat her. In the month of June, 2011, it is alleged that, 1st respondent drove her from the matrimonial home and ever since both the petitioners are taking shelter in the parental home of petitioner No.1. Therefore, as stated supra, the averments touching the domestic violence are aimed at 1st respondent. Only a stray allegation is made that respondent No.2, who is the mother of respondent No.1, is suffering with AIDS and she used to threaten petitioner No.1 that if she did not fulfill the demand for additional dowry, she would transmit her aids disease to petitioner No.1. It is quite incomprehendible as to how the 2nd respondent can transmit her disease to petitioner No.1 even assuming for a moment that 2nd respondent had such disease. So, at the outset, no reliable allegations of domestic violation are made against petitioners/A2 to A4 and therefore, continuation of the proceedings against them can be said to be abuse of process of court. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the facts of this case can be treated as one of the exceptional circumstances as envisaged in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar ’s case (1 supra) to quash the proceedings.
