Nos.1 to 4 are v. Nos.2 to 5 in D.V.C.No
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
The petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in D.V.C.No.6 of 2012. They are parents-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband in relation to the second respondent/complainant. Having regard to allegations in the case and also reliefs claimed therein, particularly, under Sections 18 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for protection and compensation, it cannot be said that the case is not maintainable and the petitioners are not necessary parties to the case. However, identities of the petitioners cannot be in dispute. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. The lower court is directed to dispense with presence of the petitioner Nos.1 to 4/respondent Nos.2 to 5 in D.V.C.No.6 of 2012 during enquiry of the case, except on the dates of
their first appearance and delivery of order therein. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 10, 2012. LMV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7285 OF 2012 LMV
10.10.2012
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — ss. 18, 22.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.