Nagamuthula Kondaiah vs State of A.P. and Another

Hon''ble Sri. Justice G. Krishna Mohan Reddy

This petition is filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010 (D.V.C.) on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem. The petitioner is the respondent and the second respondent is the complainant in the DVC case. The respondent filed the complaint under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ''the Act'') against the petitioner herein with a plea to restrain him from dispossessing her from shared household and also to pay compensation.

For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the DVC. It is pleaded and alleged in the complaint as follows.

(a) The complainant is the legally wedded wife of Chembeti Chinna Koteshwar Rao, whereas their marriage took place as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 15.11.2008. In fact, her husband was first married to one Uma Maheshwari, daughter of the respondent on 11.8.2000 and a girl by name Keerthi who is aged 7 years was born to them. On 7.3.2008 Uma Maheshwari died. The respondent used to reside in their house as family member. In fact he was looking after the affairs of the house. Her husband reposed implicit confidence on the respondent in all respects. Factually, the husband of the petitioner married her as she was a relative of him and also for taking necessary care of the minor. According to the complainant, further she and her husband have been taking care of the minor. The respondent got no interest in the welfare of the minor. On the other hand, he made several efforts to grab the amounts kept in the name of the minor girl.

(b) She alleges that apart from that, the respondent has also been making efforts to subject her to domestic violence one way or the other for the purpose of ruining the matrimonial house. The petitioner is always under threat and danger in the hands of the respondent. While such circumstances existed, on 30.6.2009 the respondent along with some anti-social elements entered the house and threatened her with dire consequences and expressed his intention to kidnap the minor. Apart from that on 1.7.2009, the respondent attempted to kidnap the minor and in that context, criminally intimidated her again threatening her with dire consequences. Later, she informed about the incident to her husband, following which they gave a report in Palvancha Police Station, which was registered in Cr.No.170 of 2009 under Sections 363, 511, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and then the respondent was arrested by the police. She claims that because of the conduct of the respondent, her health is endangered. It is also stated that the respondent left the sharing roof of the petitioner''s matrimonial house, but he is continuously making an onslaught to wreck vengeance against the family.

It is to be examined whether there are grounds to quash the proceedings in the DVC as prayed.

Here Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(g), 2(q), 2(s) and 3 coupled with Sections 18 to 22 of the Act'' are important.

(a) By virtue of Section 2(a) of the Act, "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act to domestic violence by the respondent. So existence of domestic relationship and living in shared house as defined in Sections 2(f) and 2(s) of the Act are the conditions precedent for the aggrieved party to initiate proceedings under the Act.

(b) By virtue of Section 2(q) "Respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. The meaning of the proviso can be better understood while analyzing what is meant by domestic relationship.

(c) By virtue of Section 2(f) of the Act, "Domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shred household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Thereby to constitute domestic relationship in between two parties, they should have lived in a shared house and they are related by consanguinity marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or as members of a joint family. The person aggrieved, covered by the proviso u/s 2(q) falls within the ambit of the definition of domestic relationship being a relative of the respondent by marriage.

(d) By virtue of Section 2(g) "Domestic violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3. Section 3 of the Act contemplates "Definition of domestic violence". For the purpose of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case if-

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b);

Or

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental to the aggrieved person."

(e) By virtue of Section 2(s) of the Act "Shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. Significantly, it is emphasized that to constitute a shared household, it must be a household where the aggrieved person lives or lived in a domestic relationship subject to the other formalities incorporated therein.

Thereby the main requirements here are as to whether the complainant and the respondent lived together in a shared house and whether the complainant is related to the respondent by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or being a member of a joint family who lived together as envisaged in Section 2(f) with regards to domestic violence. Pertinently, the daughter of the respondent i.e the first wife of the husband of the complainant died, thereby the first marriage of the husband of the complainant does not exist now. Thus, the complainant is altogether a different person, who got no relationship with the respondent by virtue of any marriage otherwise or by consanguinity or by being a member of a joint family within the meaning of section 2(f). What is envisaged under the proviso in Section 2(q), which section defines what is meant by ''respondent'' that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may file a complaint against a relative of the husband or male person is well within the ambit of the definition of domestic relationship only. In other words, when domestic relationship as defined in Section 2(q) is one of the conditions to file an application under the Act, a relative of the husband or male person must be one who comes within the ambit of that definition which excludes a relative like the respondent in this case.

With regards to the question of living in a shared house as defined in Section 2(s), the respondent must have a right to live in the house or allowed to live in the house under an obligation having domestic relationship as contemplated in Section 2(f) with the other inmates of the house which is one of the conditions to initiate the proceedings under the Act. Importantly in the definition of shared house also it is emphasized that the person aggrieved must have lived in a shared house having got domestic relationship which in fact does not include a person like the respondent herein subject to the formalities mentioned. That apart, neither the complainant nor her husband got any obligation to allow him to reside in the house. It is not a case of husband keeping the respondent in the house aiding the respondent to harass the complainant, rather it is admittedly a case of both the complainant and her husband living together harmoniously and both of them facing the alleged conduct of the respondent. If he is residing in the house unwantedly, they can take measures to send him out. Thus, as the respondent cannot be brought within the purview of the provisions enumerated that debars the complainant to file the complaint.

In addition to the discussion made above, the complaint is based only on surmises and conjectures. There are no specific allegations, in other words, there are only bald allegations against the respondent. It clearly appear that false allegations were made against the respondent for some purpose. It is something unbelievable in view of the circumstances of the case that the respondent preferred to stay in the house of the complainant and her husband after the death of his daughter, who was the first wife of the husband of the complainant. It is claimed by the respondent that the husband of the complainant has filed D.W.O.P.No.777 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Khammam for appointing him as the Guardian of the minor and he has also filed O.S.No.169 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem for damages against him on the ground that he made derogatory allegations against him in another legal proceedings and he also gave report to the Station House Officer, Palvancha Police Station and got him arrested, which establish that the complainant and her husband are bent upon to harass him to force him to accept their terms.

Hence good grounds are made out to quash the proceedings in the DVC. No body should be tried or enquired into unnecessarily in any proceeding. If it is done, it is nothing but abusing the process of law and harassing him or her. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in the D.V.C.No.1 of 2010 are quashed.