HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8674 OF 2012 Dated 24-7-2014 Between:
Veeramachaneni Srinivasa Rao and others.
..Petitioners.
And:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8674 OF 2012 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2012 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram.
Petitioners herein are respondents in D.V.C.
First petitioner is husband, second petitioner is mother-in-law, third petitioner is father-in-law, fourth petitioner is sister-in-law of second respondent-wife and fifth petitioner is brother-in-law of first petitioner.
Advocate for petitioners submitted that this D.V.C. is nothing but abuse of process of law and vexatious litigation. She submitted that there is no allegation of domestic relationship in the entire complaint and Protection Officer without proper verification simply put the ticks in the relevant columns for which there is no supporting material. She further submitted that first petitioner filed divorce O.P. in the year 2006 and an exparte decree is passed and one year after the said decree, the second respondent filed a petition to set aside exparte decree and thereafter, in the year, 2007, she filed maintenance case and not satisfied with those proceedings, she filed D.V.C. in the year 2012. She further submitted that maintenance was ordered initially for children and second respondent-wife is not granted any maintenance in that case, but subsequently, she was granted Rs.1500/-. She further submitted that there is no shareholding house mentioned in the entire petition, therefore, provisions of Domestic Violence Act are not attracted. She further submitted that after waiting for a period of five years, the present D.V.C. is filed which per se discloses the vexatious nature of litigation. She further submitted that no explanation is offered for this long delay of five years.
In reply, learned advocate for second respondent submitted that there are clear allegations against the petitioners in the complaint given to Protection Officer. He further submitted that when they were at Hyderabad, the other petitioners have caused harassment to her and thereafter, she was shifted to Krishna District. He further submitted that only after coming to know about the exparte decree that was obtained by showing wrong address, it made her to file D.V.C. and she explained the same in her complaint to the Protection Officer. He further submitted that the relationship is clearly mentioned in the complaint given to the Protection Officer and according to the complaint allegations, the gold and cash given to the second respondent were taken away by her in-laws and husband and they also took away the crop that is realised on the land given to her. He further submitted that it is further averred in the complaint that the documents were taken away from her and she was driven out from the house in February, 2006 and as she has no option, she went to her native place i.e., parents house at Tarigoppala. He further submitted that these allegations have to be enquired into during trial and at this stage, they cannot be decided.
Now, the point that would arise for my consideration in this petition is whether the proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2012 can be quashed or not.
POINT:
I have perused the material papers filed along with the quash petition.
On the complaint of second respondent herein, Protection Officer conducted enquiry and learned Protection Officer submitted that report in prescribed forms. The reliefs that are recommended by the Protection Officer are under Sections 18, 19 and 20. One of the relief recommended is that the petitioners have to be restrained from keeping any kind of contact with the second respondent and to prevent them from writing any threatening letters to second respondent and her relatives. The other reliefs recommended are restraining the petitioners from driving her out from the marital home and also restraining them from causing physical and mental harassment besides the other reliefs of compensation and maintenance. When the Protection Officer on enquiry found that there is prima facie material to institute the petition under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, at this stage, the correctness of those allegations cannot be decided merely on the basis of oral submissions of both sides.
On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that since there are serious allegations against petitioners, an enquiry has to be conducted by the trial court. However since the D.V.C. is of the year 2012, I feel, some time has to be fixed to the trial court for quick disposal.
Considering the submissions of both sides and material available on record, V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram is directed to expedite the enquiry in D.V.C.No.2 of 2012 and dispose of the same within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the trial court should also consider the objections raised by the petitioners herein without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order and trial court is further directed to dispense with the presence of petitioners 2 to 5 who are relatives of the husband of the second petitioner for each and every adjournment. However, petitioners 2 to 5 shall appear if the trial court feels that their physical presence is necessary for any specific purpose.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of this Criminal petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 24-7-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL PETITION No.8674 OF 2012 Dated 24-7-2014