Andhra Pradesh judgment on DV

Welcome Forums Advice Domestic Violence Andhra Pradesh judgment on DV

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • #554


      Most of people searching for this judgment.

      2007(2) ALT (Crl.) 504(A.P) delivered by the Hon´ble High Court of Andhra

      Pradesh where in it was held “as there is no claim made against the other

      respondents, continuing process against them is a clear abuse of law”.


      Criminal Petition No.5900 of 2006


      Mohammad Maqeenuddin Ahmed and 10 others

      The State of Andhra Pradesh, its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

      2. Mohd. Raheem Khan

      Counsel for petitioners: Mr.Ch. Janardhan Reddy

      Counsel for respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor

      Counsel for respondent No.2: C. Nagender


      This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the

      respondents in Domestic Violence Case (DVC) No.01 of 2006 on the file of the

      Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad to quash the

      proceedings against them in the said case.

      The second respondent herein is the father of the aggrieved person and

      father-in-law of the first petitioner herein. He filed a complaint under

      Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for

      short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 6 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic

      Violence Rules, 2006. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and

      issued summons to the petitioners. The petitioners filed the present petition

      to quash the proceedings by contending that the first petitioner filed

      O.S.No.112 of 2004 for restitution of the conjugal rights against the daughter

      of the second respondent and the same is pending for trial. The first

      petitioner is ready to take back the daughter of the second respondent and he is

      not sending his daughter along with the first petitioner. The daughter of the

      second respondent filed Maintenance Case No.2 of 2005 before the Additional

      Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad seeking maintenance and the Court

      granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month and during the course of

      examination, she admitted that there is no demand of dowry by the first

      petitioner. The second respondent also filed a private complaint against the

      petitioners and five others under Section 498-A IPC and the same is numbered as

      C.C.No.885 of 2005 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

      Nizamabad. The learned Magistrate taken the present case on file without taking

      into consideration of pendency of the case between the parties and other

      circumstances. The daughter of the second respondent is separately living since

      May 2004 and from then onwards, the first petitioner has not seen her in

      anywhere except in the Court. Therefore, there is no cause of action to file

      the present case. The petitioners 2 to 11 are living separate from 03.09.2004

      and after partition they are no way concerned with the happenings between the

      first petitioner and the daughter of the second respondent. Therefore, the

      proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioners.

      In the present case, the petitioner/the second respondent herein sought

      for the following reliefs.

      The petitioner on behalf his daughter requested the Court to pass an order

      awarding a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards medical expenses incurred during the

      period of second child in the hospital and Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses

      to the first child and Rs.1,000/- for the maintenance and expenditure of the

      petitioner’s daughter and also Rs.3,000/- for his daughter and her children per

      month towards maintenance.

      In the petition, the petitioner mentioned that her daughter lived with the

      first respondent/first petitioner herein for one year, as a result of which she

      gave birth to a male child.

      The petitioner has given all the customary jahez articles to the first

      respondent, which is still in his custody. After the birth of the child, the

      health of the petitioner’s daughter deteriorated. But the first respondent was

      insisting the petitioner’s daughter to come to his house immediately after

      cradle ceremony. Therefore, the differences arose between them and the

      petitioner’s daughter joined the company of the first respondent against the

      medical advice and when she joined the first respondent, her position was like a

      maidservant. The first respondent started demanding of Rs.2,00,000/-. During

      pendency of the maintenance proceedings, the petitioner’s daughter gave birth to

      a female child. Despite informing the said information to the first respondent,

      he did not give the cash for medical expenses and the respondents 2 to 10

      abetted the first respondent to disown his liability and responsibility towards

      petitioner’s daughter. At the time of the first delivery also, the first

      respondent did not send any money for medical expenses or to take care of the

      health and safety of the petitioner’s daughter, which amounts to physical abuse.

      When there was a miscarriage of pregnancy to the daughter of the petitioner, the

      first respondent has not paid to any amount towards medical expenses. When the

      petitioner’s daughter is away for marital life from the first respondent on

      account of his conduct, insisting for marital life by the first respondent

      amounts to harassing the petitioner’s daughter and harming her health.

      Therefore, the first respondent is liable to maintain his daughter. It is

      further mentioned that the first respondent is frequently calling the

      petitioner’s daughter on telephone and humiliating and insulting her of not

      having a male child and he was demanding to bring Rs.3.00 or 4.00 lakhs if she

      wants to join his company and also threatening that the first respondent will

      dispose of all jahez articles and his share of the property denying the right to

      the children. Hence, the present petition.

      Section 20 of the Act provides for monetary reliefs, which reads as


      “20. Monetary reliefs:- (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section

      (1) of Section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary

      relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person

      and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and

      such relief may include, but not limited to,-

      (a) the loss of earnings;

      (b) the medical expenses;

      (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property

      from the control of the aggrieved person; and

      (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any,

      including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section

      125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the

      time being in force.

      (2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and

      reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved

      person is accustomed.

      (3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment

      or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case

      may require.

      (4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under

      sub-section (1) to the parties to the application and to the in charge of the

      police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent


      (5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person

      within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1).

      (6) Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of

      the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a

      debtor of the respondent, to directly pay the aggrieved person or to deposit

      with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to

      the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary

      relief payable by the respondent.”

      Under Section 22 of the Act also, compensation can be awarded. From the

      prayer portion of the petition, it is revealed that the reliefs were sought

      against the first respondent/first petitioner herein only. From the body of the

      petition also, no specific allegations were made against the respondents 2 to

      11/petitioners 2 to 11 herein except mentioning that at their instance, the

      first petitioner was demanding money and that he was not providing money for

      medical expenses and disowned the liability being abetted by petitioners 2 to

      10. Since no relief is claimed against petitioners 2 to 11, it is unnecessary

      to continue the proceedings against them and continuation of the proceedings

      against them amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, I am inclined to

      quash the proceedings against the petitioners 2 to 11.

      So far as the first petitioner is concerned, the entire claim is against

      him. Since there are allegations in the petition that he neglected to pay

      medical expenses and also neglected to maintain her and her children, I am not

      inclined to quash the proceedings against him.

      In the result, the Criminal Petition in respect of the first petitioner is

      dismissed and the Criminal Petition in respect of petitioners 2 to 11 is allowed

      by quashing the proceedings against them in Domestic Violence Case (DVC) No.01

      of 2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

      Nizamabad for the alleged offences.

    • #3170

      Thank you Ravi for the judgment

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.