ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of proceedings in D.V.C.No. 40 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore. 2. Respondent No. 1 and her minor daughter No. 2 are the applicants in the above said D.V.C. Respondent No. 3 is the State. 3. Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Kum Grandhi Priyanka, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No. 3 submitted arguments. 4. Since D.V.C.No. 40 of 2018 is sought to be quashed, it is relevant to notice what is there in that application. 5. An aggrieved woman and her minor daughter filed the said D.V.C. under Sections 12, 23(2), 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act, 2005’). The reliefs claimed in the said application are extracted here: (a) To grant protection orders prohibiting the acts of Domestic Violence Right against 1st respondent and his family members from repeating any of the acts of Domestic Violence. (b) Directing 1st respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) per month to aggrieved person and 2nd petitioner i.e., minor daughter towards food, cloth day to day needs as per the social status of my husband. (c) Directing 1st respondent to pay Rs.10,000/-towards medical expenses. (d) Directing 1st respondent to provide share in the house and to allow the 1st petitioner i.e. aggrieved person to reside in his house or secure the same level of alternative accommodation at Adapareddypalli Village, Tirupathi Rural, Tirupathi and pay rent, electricity bill and water charges of Rs.15,000/-p.m. as per the social status of 1st respondent u/s 19(1) of the D.V.C. Act 2005 and also direct the Station House Officer of concerned police station at IV Town P.S., Nellore to give protection to 1st petitioner. (e) Directing 1st respondent to return my Stridhanam given at the time of marriage, that is dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-towards purchase of car and gold ornaments weighing 50 sovereigns and also Rs.5,00,000/-towards marriage expenses and other household articles. (e) Directing 1st respondent to return my Stridhanam given at the time of marriage, that is dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-towards purchase of car and gold ornaments weighing 50 sovereigns and also Rs.5,00,000/-towards marriage expenses and other household articles. (f) Directing 1st respondent to pay compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-for having subjecting aggrieved person to harass of physical and mental with his illegal demand and causing irreparable loss to aggrieved person and to 2nd petitioner minor daughter. (g) Directing 1st respondent to pay the alimony of Rs.3,00,00,000/-(Rupees Three Crores only) to 1st petitioner i.e., aggrieved person and to 2nd petitioner i.e., minor daughter throughout life if 1st petitioner do not to restore the marital fold. 6. The reliefs claimed in the application which are extracted above would indicate that all the reliefs have been claimed as against respondent No. 1 therein and only protection order is sought as against respondent No. 1 as well as his family members. Sri M.Parasurami Reddy and Smt. M.Vijaya Kumari are spouses. They have four sons. One such son is Sri M.Prathap Reddy. Smt. Kalathuru @ Mummireddygari Srivani married that Sri M.Prathap Reddy. They are Hindus and the marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and customs on 09.10.2011 at Tiruchanur near Tirupathi. During their wedlock they were blessed with a daughter by name Kalathuru @ Mummireddygari Adhyasri, who is shown aged four years by the time D.V.C.No. 40 of 2018 was filed. The wife and her daughter as aggrieved persons presented the said D.V.C. as against the husband of the first applicant and his siblings and parents showing them as respondent Nos.1 to 5 therein. It is those respondents in that D.V.C. who have moved the present criminal petition. 7. A perusal of the D.V.C. application would show that the aggrieved woman’s husband and in-laws and the siblings of her husband all are natives of Adapareddypalli Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. By the time the D.V.C. was filed the husband of the aggrieved woman has been working as a Software Engineer at Houstan, Texas, United States of America. Aggrieved woman’s in-laws are living at their native places. Siblings of the aggrieved woman’s husband are also employed and Sri M.Suresh Reddy is working at Bangalore and Sri M.Prasad Reddy working at Hyderabad or Tirupathi. Aggrieved woman’s in-laws are living at their native places. Siblings of the aggrieved woman’s husband are also employed and Sri M.Suresh Reddy is working at Bangalore and Sri M.Prasad Reddy working at Hyderabad or Tirupathi. The application in D.V.C. also indicates that subsequent to the marriage the spouses lived for some time at Adapareddypalli Village and thereafter they lived at Mysore of Karnataka State and thereafter they went Abroad and lived together at Houstan, Texas, United States of America. Finally the aggrieved woman and her child came back to India and they have been living with the woman’s parents at Aditya Nagar, Nellore in SPSR Nellore District. D.V.C. was filed at Nellore. All the above facts are not in dispute. 8. The application in D.V.C. indicates about payment of dowry and other lanchanams as were demanded by the groom’s family. It then narrates about the husband’s greed of money and his mental and physical abuses as against his wife for her failure to bring additional money and dowry. At more than one place it mentions about the cruel attitude of the husband and how he used to starve the wife and child and how he used to insult the wife and how he used to kick her in the stomach and how the bad conduct of husband continued even at United States of America. It then refers to a legal notice dated 22.02.2017 issued by the husband to her demanding for restitution of conjugal rights. It then narrates about the aggrieved person lodging a written information with police on 10.04.2017 and the failure of the police in taking further action. At para No. 10 of the application it is specifically mentioned that despite all the troubles she underwent, the aggrieved woman intends to maintain her marital relationship with her husband. At para No. 3 of the application it is stated that after solemnization of marriage on 09.10.2011 the aggrieved woman joined with her husband at Adapareddypalli Village which was the matrimonial home and lived there for few days. In the context of the above referred facts, the aggrieved woman sought for herself and her daughter the various reliefs that are enlisted in the earlier paragraphs of this order. 9. In the context of the above referred facts, the aggrieved woman sought for herself and her daughter the various reliefs that are enlisted in the earlier paragraphs of this order. 9. Coming to the parents and siblings of her husband, at para No. 4 of the application, the aggrieved woman states that respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein, who are siblings of her husband, used to visit Adapareddypalli Village during weekends when she was brought by her husband from Mysore to the native place. It is on those occasions, the siblings of her husband used to harass her for money and additional dowry. 10. Coming to her in-laws, the aggrieved person at para No. 5 of her application in D.V.C. mentions that all the cruelty and bad conduct of her husband used to be informed by her to her in-laws, but they used to support their son and all of them together demanded her to bring additional dowry. It is with those allegations, the D.V.C. was filed seeking various reliefs. 11. Challenging the maintainability of the said D.V.C., the husband and his siblings and parents filed the present criminal petition on the following grounds: That the D.V.C. is not maintainable as the learned trial Court failed to see that petitioner Nos.2 to 5, who are parents and siblings of 1st petitioner never lived together with the aggrieved woman and they lived elsewhere and therefore they never had a shared household. That the 1st petitioner lastly resided in United States of America along with aggrieved woman and her child and now the aggrieved woman and her child are living at Nellore and that all the allegations are relatable to Section 498-A I.P.C. but she filed the present D.V.C. The provisions of the Act, 2005 do not apply, but in ignorance of this the learned Magistrate has taken the case on file and therefore, the proceedings are to be quashed. 12. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submit that the aggrieved woman is in domestic relationship with petitioner Nos.2 to 5, who are family members along with her husband/1st petitioner and the allegations in the application indicate domestic violence and therefore, the application was properly entertained by the learned Magistrate and no interference is required. 13. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submit that the aggrieved woman is in domestic relationship with petitioner Nos.2 to 5, who are family members along with her husband/1st petitioner and the allegations in the application indicate domestic violence and therefore, the application was properly entertained by the learned Magistrate and no interference is required. 13. The following point fall for consideration: “Whether in the given facts and circumstances continuance of proceedings in D.V.C.No. 40 of 2018 would amount to abuse of process of law? POINT: 14. The allegations as far as 1st petitioner being the husband of the aggrieved woman are concerned, it is an admitted case of marital relationship between them as spouses and they lived at different places and the applicant in her application indicated various forms of domestic violence. The question whether learned Magistrate at Nellore has territorial jurisdiction or not need not be decided here since by the terms of Section 27 of the Act, 2005 various Courts at which proceedings under that enactment could be taken up by the aggrieved woman. As long as the aggrieved woman claimed monetary reliefs including maintenance allowance, those have to be answered by the husband. Necessary hearing has to take place before the learned Magistrate as far as 1st petitioner-Sri M.Prathap Reddy is concerned. Therefore, there is no ground to quash the proceedings as far as the 1st petitioner is concerned. 15. Coming to petitioner Nos.2 to 5, the undisputed facts available from the record and the contents of application in D.V.C. itself indicate that these petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have not been living under one roof along with the aggrieved woman and her child. It is in this context the question of domestic relationship has been argued on both sides. Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005 defines “domestic relationship” as mentioned below: “2(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, 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.” 16. Section 2(s) of the Act, 2005 defines “shared household” as mentioned below: “2(s) “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.” 17. The term shared household is hinged on the concept of intentional residence of the parties in one household. Mere fleeting or casual living does not make one a shared household vide Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414 and Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 . In this regard, learned counsel for petitioners cited the judgment of the then composite High Court in P. Sugunamma vs. State of A.P. 2015 (2) ALD 305. Referring to a similar situation where relatives of the husband have not been living along with the spouses but living elsewhere with periodical or sporadic visits, it was held that where any person who is so related who has been not living or had not lived together at any point of time with the aggrieved person in a shared household they cannot be said to be in domestic relationship. To the similar effect is the law spelt out by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra, 2020 Law Suit (Bom) 1605. The averments in the application in D.V.C. of the aggrieved person do indicate that since the time of marriage it is the spouses who lived together under one roof at different places at all times and the remaining respondents who are their family members have been living at different other places and in their own respective houses. It is on occasions they paid visits to the spouses. It is on occasions they paid visits to the spouses. Such occasional visits were only meant for those occasions and they were never intended and could not be intended to be visits making one to think that they are holding shared household. The definition of “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the Act, 2005 requires a domestic relationship and domestic relationship as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005 means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household. The facts mentioned in the application in D.V.C. clearly show that, that domestic relationship is absent between the aggrieved woman on one hand and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on the other hand. It is in that view of the matter, one has to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners that without there being any case disclosed by the application in D.V.C. permitting the learned Magistrate to take up further proceedings against them would be abuse of process of Court. 18. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cited Giduthuri Kesari Kumar vs. State of Telangana, 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470. That was also a case decided by the erstwhile composite High Court. The point that was considered in that case was about maintainability of a quash petition in domestic violence case. A learned Judge of this Court concluded that a quash petition could be maintained however they could never be quashed on the simple ground that the family members are unnecessarily roped in the case. This judgment does not refer any principle of law about shared house hold and domestic relationship contrary to what is already noticed. Therefore, the contentions of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in this regard do not have any merit. The point is answered accordingly. 19. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed in part. Proceedings in D.V.C.No. 40 of 2018 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore as against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 Sri M.Parasurami Reddy, Smt. M.Vijayakumari, Sri M.Suresh Reddy and Sri M.Prasad Reddy stand quashed. So far as petitioner No. 1 -Sri M.Prathap Reddy is concerned, the present petition stands dismissed and the learned Magistrate shall proceed further in accordance with law and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. 20. So far as petitioner No. 1 -Sri M.Prathap Reddy is concerned, the present petition stands dismissed and the learned Magistrate shall proceed further in accordance with law and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. 20. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.