MONAKURU RENUKA Vs. MENAKURU MONA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is filed by the petitioners, who are respondent nos. 2 to 4 in D. V. C. No. 1 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Pulivendula, Kadapa District. The first respondent herein, who is the complainant (herein after called as the complainant) in the above D. V. C. , filed the complaint under section 12 of the Protection of Women from domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the act') claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant, her marriage with M. S. Mahender Reddy son of the first and second petitioners and the brother of the third petitioner herein was performed on 29. 06. 1997. According to the complainant, huge amount to a tune of Rs. 1. 00 crore was given to the petitioners apart from several other articles. After the marriage, the spouses lived in United States of America for some time. There was harassment by the husband, even after the birth of a child. Even after they returned to India, there was harassment by the husband, as well as parents-in-law, including the sister-in-law, it is the case of the complainant that not only she, but her father was assaulted by the present petitioners. In the D. V. C. , she sought reliefs of separate residence, compensation of Rs. 8. 00 crores and Rs. 1. 50 lakhs towards house hold expenses.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioners is that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken to be true also, the provisions of the act would not attract against present petitioner nos. 1 and3,asundersection2 (q)of the Act, women are not liable and the reliefs that are now being claimed by the petitioners can be granted againstthe husband only and notfrom any other member of the family, including the present second petitioner, father-in-law. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the complainant has also filed a case against the petitioners and her husband under section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No. 77 of 2008 of Pulivendula Police Station that was registered on 12. 6. 2008, which perhaps is a counter blast to the report given by the second petitioner herein at Varthuru Police Station, bangalore City on 6. 6. 2008.