JUDGMENT NAINALA JAYASURYA, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent-State. 2. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/5th respondent in D.V.C.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, on the premise that there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent herein. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 5th respondent in the said D.V.C, is a "friend" of the husband of the 1st respondent. While drawing the attention of this Court to the application filed in D.V.C, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the D.V.C and further that as there is no relationship between the petitioner and husband and in-laws of the 1st respondent, the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "D.V. Act") are not attracted. In the said circumstances, he submits that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/5th respondent constitutes abuse of process of Law and accordingly seeks to quash the same. 4. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. As seen from the application filed by the complainant/ 1 st respondent under Sec. 12 of the D.V. Act, the petitioner/5th respondent is the "close friend" of the 1st respondent's husband. While making certain allegations against the respondents in the D.V.C, including the petitioner herein, the 1st respondent made the following prayer:- a) Direct the respondents not to commit any acts of domestic violence against the aggrieved person and her minor children and other family members; b) Direct the respondents not to interfere with the aggrieved person's day-to-day life; c) Direct the 1st respondent to pay Rs.10, 00, 000.00 towards compensation and damages; and d) To pass such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. 5. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether the provisions of the Act are applicable to the petitioner, who is a friend of the 1st respondent's husband, it may be expedient to refer to the relevant provisions of the D.V. Act. 6. Sec. 2(a) of the D.V. Act defines "aggrieved person" any woman, who is or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. 7. "Domestic relationship" is defined under Sec. 2(f) of the D.V. Act, which means a relationship between two persons, who lived or have, at any point of time lived together in a share 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. As per Sec. 2(g) of the D.V. Act, "Domestic Violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in Sec. 3. As per Sec. 2(q) of the D.V. Act, "respondent" means any adult male person, who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the Act and in terms of proviso to Sec. 2(q) an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also filed a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. 8. As per Sec. 2(s) of the D.V. Act "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. 9. 9. Chapter-II of the D.V. Act deals with "domestic violence" and the definition of the same is provided in Sec. 3 of the Act, which reads as follows:- 3. Definition of domestic violence.-For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it- (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person. Explanation I.-For the purposes of this sec. , - (i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force; (ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman; (iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes- (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested. (iv) "economic abuse" includes- (a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance; (b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and (c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household. Explanation II.-For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this sec. , the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration. 10. From a conjoint reading of the above provisions, it is clear that for the purpose of invocation of the provisions of the Act and granting of reliefs thereto, the following ingredients are to be satisfied:- (a) There should be a domestic relationship between the aggrieved person with the respondent; (b) An act of the domestic violence by the respondent; (c) The aggrieved person and the respondent live or at any point of time lived together in a 'shared household'; (d) They should be related by consanguinity, marriage or through the relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; (e) The complaint should be against a relative of the husband or the male person. Unless the above ingredients are present no reliefs can be granted under Sec. 12 of the D.V. Act 11. Unless the above ingredients are present no reliefs can be granted under Sec. 12 of the D.V. Act 11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a "friend" of the 1st respondent's husband, who is arrayed as 5th respondent in the D.V.C. Therefore, the question of the aggrieved person/1st respondentcomplainant having a "domestic relationship"' as defined under Sec. 2(f) of the D.V. Act would not arise at all. Further, he can neither be treated as "respondent" in terms of Sec. 2(q) of the D.V. Act, nor a complaint can be lodged against him as per proviso to the said Sec. as he is not a relative of the husband or the male partner. Once the petitioner herein is not covered under the definition of "respondent" as envisaged in Sec. 2(q) of the D.V. Act, the question of applicability of other provisions of the Act does not arise at all under no stretch of imagination, can it be construed that the petitioner is a person, who is related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or a family member living together in a joint family of the aggrieved person. 12. In such circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, invocation of the provisions of the Act and seeking reliefs against the petitioner/5th respondent is legally unsustainable. The petitioner being the "friend" of the husband of the 1st respondent would not fall in any of the categories of persons as envisaged under the Act and therefore continuation of proceedings against him constitutes abuse of process of Law. 13. Further, the term "relative" has not been specifically defined under the Act. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to examine as to whether the term "relative of husband of a woman" within the meaning of Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") should be given an extended meaning in the case of U. Suvetha Vs State by Inspector of Police and another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 757. 14. In the said case, a crime was registered against the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of IPC. In the F.I.R, she was described as 'girlfriend'' of the complainant's husband at one place and as 'concubine' at the other. 14. In the said case, a crime was registered against the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of IPC. In the F.I.R, she was described as 'girlfriend'' of the complainant's husband at one place and as 'concubine' at the other. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the definition of 'relative' as provided under different enactments and interpreted in various decisions at Para 10 held as follows:- 10. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term "relative" must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word "relative" would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also considered the dictionary meaning of the word "relative" and ultimately at Para 18 of the Judgment opined as follows:- "By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense be a "relative". The word "relative" brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise." 16. The above legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. In the light of the conclusions arrived at supra and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with reference to the provisions of the Act, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings in D.V.C against the petitioner a "friend" of the 1st respondent's husband, is wholly unsustainable and accordingly, the proceedings are liable to be quashed in exercise of powers under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/5th respondent in D.V.C. No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, East Godavari District are quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.