APHC010263012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4219/2024 Between: Parnam Sasikala and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. M.S.BANU PRASAD RAO The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.4219 of 2024 ORDER: 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd petitioner is the brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent and the petitioner No.3 is the wife of the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd respondent’s husband passed away on 21.05.2023 on account of illness. The present complaint is filed against the mother-in-law, brother-in-law’s wife alleging domestic violence. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that even if the allegations made in the complaint to be true, the DVC cannot be made applicable. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner’s son and the 2nd respondent were in love and they married. Subsequently, on account of the illness, the son of 1st petitioner passed away and the 1st petitioner filed WP.No.32278 of 2023 seeking release of PF of her son, who worked as a Junior Assistant. This Court vide order dated 05.01.2024 disposed the writ petition directing the District Audit Officer, Kadapa to consider the proceedings of Deputy Executive Officer with regard to release of PF due payable on account of service of the 1st petitioner’s son. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that soon after the PF amount was released to the 1st petitioner, the 2nd respondent has now come up with a false complaint alleging DVC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the 2nd respondent and the petitioners were not residing under one roof and were not having domestic relationship. Admittedly, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent never shared the same house. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of P.Sugunamma and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another1, this Court held at para 18 as follows ; 18. A plain and analytical reading and a harmonious consideration of all the provisions of the Act, particularly, the above definitions brings to the fore the following aspects: A person can be arraigned as a respondent in a DV case provided he is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The proviso to Section 2(q) says that an aggrieved wife may also file a complaint against the relation of a husband. A plain reading of the said definition would make it manifest that any person who can be arraigned as a respondent must be a person who is or has been in domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and must have subjected the aggrieved person to any act of domestic violence. Unless the said requirements are fulfilled a person cannot be arraigned as a respondent in a DV Case. Coming to the aspect of ‘domestic relationship’, the domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who either are living together or had at any point of time lived together in a ‘shared 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. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the matter would have to be decided by the trial Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 5. Even as per the complaint, the 2nd respondent had filed a complaint on 25.07.2023, alleging the offences under Sections 384, 506 IPC against the petitioners 1 and 2. In the said complaint it is the specifically stated that the 2nd respondent and her children were residing separately and 1 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 570 that after the marriage of 2nd respondent with the son of 1st petitioner neither the 1st petitioner nor the 2nd respondent ever visit the house of the 2nd respondent. The said complaint is part of the record. 6. Considering the submissions, the record also would indicate that the 2nd respondent has not shared the same house with the petitioners and admittedly after the marriage of the 2nd respondent with her husband, the petitioners never visited the 2nd respondent. It is also a matter of record that the 2nd respondent was residing separately along with her children at H.No.10-1-9 at Akuthota Street, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati. 7. On these considerations, the complaint against the petitioners cannot sustain and accordingly the DVC.No.31 of 2024 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati against the petitioners is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. 9. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt.26.06.2025 KGM 290 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.4219 of 2024 Dated 26.06.2025 KGM