LAWS(APH)-2013-4-96

MARKAPURAM SIVA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On April 30, 2013
Markapuram Siva Rao Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners, who are respondent Nos.2 to 7 in D.V.C.No.4 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking to quash the proceedings in the said D.V.C.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as under: The 2nd respondent herein, who is the wife of 1st respondent in the D.V.C., lodged a report before Protection Officer, who enquired and in turn presented the same along with Form I before the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet along with Form II under Section 12 of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "the Act"). The 1st petitioner is father in law, 2nd petitioner is mother in law, 3rd petitioner is sister in law, 4th petitioner is husband of 3rd petitioner, petitioners 5 and 6 are brothers in law of the 2nd respondent herein. It is alleged that the marriage between 1st respondent in DVC and the 2nd respondent herein took place on 07.03.1999 at Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. It was a love marriage. It is alleged that the 1st respondent in DVC i.e. the husband demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/ as dowry and land to an extent of Ac.0 30 cents situated at Rao's Restaurant, Ameenabad, which is an ancestral property of the 2nd respondent herein. Initially her parents were reluctant to register the land but seeing the helplessness of the respondent, they agreed to register the land in joint names. The said proposal was not accepted and insisted that the land should be registered in his name and that too before the marriage. The engagement took place on 18.02.1999 and the land was registered in favour of her husband. After marriage, the respondent No.2 herein came to know about the bad vices of her husband and when questioned, he harassed her both physically and mentally for additional money. The respondent No.2 was working as a Vidya Volunteer at Primary School, Ameenabad, but her husband used to reside at Guntur on the ground that he was preparing for competitive examinations. The victim i.e. the respondent No.2 herein, was residing with her parents at Vemuluripadu village. The complaint further indicates that the 1st respondent in DVC used to say that had he married another woman he would have got more dowry and so saying he used to harass her in many ways. After much persuasion she was taken to her in laws house and stayed there for few days. It is alleged that to her surprise, her parents in law, sister in law, brothers in law harassed her physically and mentally for additional dowry. When she asked the 1st petitioner as to why she is being treated like that and that she should be treated like her daughter, she replied that there is no match to her daughter. At that juncture, the other petitioners are alleged to have abused and beat her saying that she came to their house as 'shani' and that assets will not come to their house. Thereafter, her husband took her to Guntur where she got selected for Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 2002. Her husband also got B.Ed. seat. In the year 2005, they were blessed with a child. Even after birth of the child, the harassment in the hands of her husband continued and he was extracting money from her. In spite of the fact that she was working at Bellamkonda, she agreed the proposal of her husband to stay at Krosuru though it is difficult for her to go to Bellamkonda from Krosuru every day. On 11.03.2006 they took a house at Krosuru. It is alleged that her in laws used to come there and demand her to sell the land, which was in their joint names for clearing the debts. She did not agree for the same. Since the aggrieved person could not give money as demanded by the respondents in DVC, the husband of the aggrieved person tried to kill her by putting his leg on her throat. Seeing the condition of the respondents herein her parents took her back to their house on 30.04.2006.

(3.) BASING on these allegations, a report was given to the Project Officer on 21.07.2010, who in turn submitted the complaint under Form I for the reliefs under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act apart from seeking interim reliefs.