MOHAMMAD MAQEENUDDIN AHMED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. by the respondents in Domestic Violence Case (DVC) No. 1 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 3-9-2004 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.