A.Sreenivasa Rao and Others Vs. the State of A.P. - Court Judgment

1. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent-wife.  The petitionersare Accused Nos.1 to 5 in D.V.A.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the III AdditionalChief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.  The 1st accused is/was the husband ofthe 2nd respondent.  Alleging that A-1 to A-5 committed matrimonial offences,the 2nd respondent/wife laid D.V.A.No.18 of 2007.

2. As there is prior litigation between the parties, the 2nd respondent laidM.C.No.175 of 2003 seeking for maintenance from the 1st petitioner herein.  Shewas indeed successful in obtaining an order from the Court granting maintenancein her favour.  It would appear that the order has become final.

3. While so, the 2nd respondent laid C.C.No.226 of 2003 on the file of theXIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.  Shemade allegations against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.226 of 2003 underSection 498-A and other matrimonial offences.  The case had ended in acquittal.The judgment was pronounced on 30.4.2007.  

4. In the interregnum, the 1st petitioner/husband laid O.P.No.366 of 2004 onthe file of the Family Court, Hyderabad seeking the dissolution of his marriagewith the 2nd respondent by divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of thewife.  The learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad granted divorce in favour ofthe petitioner through orders in O.P.No.366 of 2004 on 5.5.2006.

5. It may be noticed that D.V.A.No.18 of 2007 itself was filed after the 1stpetitioner obtained divorce from the 2nd respondent.  Sri Ashish Samanth,learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that laying of D.V.C.No.18 of 2007is tantamount to double jeopardy as the petitioners were acquitted on identicalallegations in C.C.No.226 of 2003 and that the petitioners cannot be proceededagainst again in D.V.A.No.18 of 2007.  I do not agree with this contention ofthe learned Counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the protectionenvisaged by the Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution as well as by Section300 Cr.P.C., which is a protection against the double jeopardy would apply ifboth the proceedings are criminal in nature, whereas the proceedings inD.V.A.No.18 of 2007 cannot be considered to be criminal proceedings.  Likeproceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., perhaps the proceedings under Domestic  Violence Act are quasi-criminal proceedings.  However, they are not criminalproceedings as such to fall within the mischief of Article 20(2) of the IndianConstitution or under Section 300 Cr.P.C.

6. At the same time, by the time the D.V.A.No.18 of 2007 was laid in 2007,the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent already stooddissolved by the Family Court, Hyderabad through a decree in O.P.No.366 of 2004.When there was no jural relationship of man and his wife between the 1stpetitioner and the 2nd respondent by the date of filing of D.V.A.No.18 of 2007,the case in D.V.A.No.18 of 2007 prima-facie is not maintainable.  Added to it,the 2nd respondent is silent as to the dates when the alleged violations underthe Domestic Violence Act have occurred.  Viewed in this angle, the 2ndrespondent is not entitled to proceed against the petitioner under theprovisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

7. I wholly agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for thepetitioners that the proceedings in D.V.A.No.18 of 2007 are not maintainable inview of the divorce between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent havingbeen granted by a competent Civil Court.  Proceedings against the petitionersherein are quashed in D.V.A.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the III AdditionalChief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
8. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed.