IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU
Criminal Petition No.5900 of 2006
10-04-2007
Mohammad Maqeenuddin Ahmed and 10 others
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another
Counsel
for petitioners: Mr.Ch. Janardhan Reddy
Counsel
for respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor
Counsel
for respondent No.2: C. Nagender
:ORDER:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. In
the present case, the petitioner/the second respondent herein sought for the
following reliefs.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Section
20 of the Act provides for monetary reliefs, which reads as follows: "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 resides. (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."
7. Under
Section 22 of the Act also, compensation can be awarded.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
-0-