CRLP/919/2009 of N.Srinivas, Vs Smt. N.Lalitha, on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

Heard Smt.K.Madhavi, learned counsel for thepetitioners.

This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings inD.V.C.No.12 of 2008 instituted under the Protection of Womenfrom Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Respondents 1 and 2herein filed the D.V.C. and they are wife and minor daughter ofthe 1[st] petitioner herein.

A perusal of the copy of the D.V.C petition filed by thepetitioners counsel would show that in the said D.V.Crespondents 1 and 2 claimed monthly maintenance ofRs.5,000/- for each of them and they further claimed a sum ofRs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for pain andharassment meted out to them. These are the two reliefswhich are specifically claimed in the D.V.C

The contention of Smt.K.Madhavi is that so far asmaintenance is concerned, the husband alone is liable, butnot the other petitioners herein. Her further contention is even with regard to the compensation petitioners 2 to 4 cannot bemade liable as they are said to be living away from the 1[st]petitioner.

These contentions, however, have to be looked into inthe D.V.C. wherein the allegations show that all the petitionersharassed respondents 1 and 2. These are disputed questionsof fact, which cannot be gone into in this criminal petition. Going by the averments in the D.V.C., it cannot be said that itis totally baseless one, which warrants interference, by thisCourt under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

It may, however, be noted that so far as maintenanceand compensation are concerned, it is only the 1[st] petitionerbeing husband who would be prima facie liable to pay them incase respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to the same and thecourt below would be competent to proceed against him andpass an ex parte order also.

In these circumstances, if any application is filed byrespondents 1 and 2 for interim relief with regard to the abovetwo main reliefs claimed in the D.V.C against other petitionersalso, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall proceedand decide the same as against petitioners 2 to 4 herein onlyafter giving sufficient notice and opportunity to them.

With these observations, this criminal petition isdismissed.

___________________

N.RAVI SHANKAR, J.

kpr