JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 2. The misc.petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of criminal cases instituted by the respondents Smt. Anita and Ms. Bhavika against the petitioners under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the mother in law and father in law of the respondent No. 1 and thus at best they had the occasion to interact with the respondents However, the remaining petitioners are such relatives of the husband who are living separately since long, and the therefore, there was no occasion for these petitioners to have been interacted with the respondents so as to make them liable to face proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. He relies on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Dixit & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2013(2) Criminal Court Cases 226 (S.C.) : 2013(1) Apex Court Judgments 403 (S.C.) : 2013 Cr. LR (SC) 416 and urges that the misc. petition deserves to be accepted qua the petitioners No. 3 to 8. 4. Per contra Mr. I.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents vehementh opposes the submissions advanced by the petitioners counsel and urges that there is a specific allegation in the application submitted by the respondents before the learned trial Court that all the petitioners harassed and humiliated Smt. Anita for demand of dowry. He thus prays that the misc. petition should be rejected. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned complaint. 6. So far as the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are concerned they being the.mother in-law and father-in-law of the respondent No. 1 Smt. Anita would definitely have had the occasion to interact with her and therefore, the possibility of their being involved in the alleged domestic violence cannot be ruled out. However, the remaining petitioners are all admittedly such relatives of the husband who are since the very beginning residing separately from Smt. Anita. However, the remaining petitioners are all admittedly such relatives of the husband who are since the very beginning residing separately from Smt. Anita. There was hardly any occasion for them to have even interacted with Smt. Anita (respondent No. l) for any significant period of time, and therefore, there is not even a faintest chance of their having participated in the alleged domestic violence committed with her. It is also informed to the Court that Kirti Choudhary, the husband of the respondent Smt. Anita has already been ordered to pay monetary compensation to her under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. In this view of the matter and keeping in view the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Dixit & Ors. v. State of U.P. (supra), the misc. petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the misc. petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 Pramod Kumar and petitioner No. 2 Kanchan Devi is dismissed. However, so far as the petitioner No. 3 Ramesh Chand, petitioner No. 4, Priti Choudhary, petitioner No. 5, Hema Ram, petitioner No. 6 Rajendra Kumar Lomrod, petitioner No. 7 Smt. Prabha and petitioner No. 8 Smt. Pramila @ Chotya are concerned, the prayer made on their behalf for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case No. 105/2015 instituted against them in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ladnoo deserves to be and is hereby accepted and the proceedings of the Cr. Case No. 105/2015 filed against them under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ladnoo are hereby quashed. *******