ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Respondents seeking quashment of proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, Vizianagaram District. 2. Petitioner No.1 herein is the husband and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws of Respondent No.1 herein and Petitioner No.4 herein is the nephew of Petitioner No.1. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: a. Marriage of Petitioner No.1 with Respondent No.1 was performed on 21.05.2014. At the time of marriage, as per the demands of the Petitioners herein, the mother of Respondent No.1 paid dowry of Rs.12,00,000/-, sare saman worth Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.80,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam, Rs.1,50,000/- towards marriage expenses to the Petitioner Nos., 1 to 3 herein and also presented a bracelet weighing 3 ½ tulas, three gold rings weighing 25 grams to Petitioner No.1 herein and 5 tulas of gold to Respondent No.1 herein. b. The marriage was consummated and during wedlock Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 herein were blessed with two children i.e., Respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein. Few days thereafter, Petitioner No.1 herein started harassing the Respondent No.1 herein both physically and mentally by demanding to bring Rs.5,00,000/- from her mother to invest in a business. With the said amount, they started a firm under the name and style of Star Engineering and Logistic Services at Visakhapatnam and within two years they started another firm under the name and style of M/s.S.S.C.Marine Services, Visakhapatnam. c. Respondent No.1 joined as a partner along with one Poosarla Vasavi in the said firms. Even at time of her pregnancy also, Petitioner No.1 herein used to harass Respondent No.1 herein both physically and mentally. She bore the torture with a fond hope that there would be a change in the attitude of Petitioner No.1, but in vain. After the birth of Respondent No.2 herein, Petitioner No.1 again demanded an additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and the same was also paid by the mother of Respondent No.1. She bore the torture with a fond hope that there would be a change in the attitude of Petitioner No.1, but in vain. After the birth of Respondent No.2 herein, Petitioner No.1 again demanded an additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and the same was also paid by the mother of Respondent No.1. d. With the profits in business, Respondent No.1 purchased a site at Murali Nagar under a Registered Sale Deed dated 25.02.2016 for which mother of Respondent No.1 also contributed an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and the said site was registered in the names of Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 herein. e. From 2017, Petitioner Nos., 2 to 4 also started harassing her by instigation of the Petitioner No.1. They all used to demand to transfer the interest and rights of Respondent No.1 in the business and the site purchased by her for which, she did not agree. They used to threaten Respondent No.1 with dire consequences and that they will cause disappearance of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. f. Finally, on their demand, Respondent No.1 permitted Petitioner No.4 to look after the business and she left to Arikathota Village and used to reside with Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein till 28.12.2019. Unbearable with the harassment of Petitioners herein, Respondent No.1 came to her mother’s house at Salur. While so, on 04.01.2020, Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 herein came to Respondent No.1 and obtained her signatures on stamp papers and blank papers forcibly and created an agreement for divorce. g. In the meanwhile, on 30.12.2019 Petitioner No.1 herein forced her to sign on papers before an Advocate. The efforts made by the elders to settle the matter proved futile. Petitioner No.1 herein also had taken away all the gold ornaments of Respondent No.1. h. On 26.01.2020, Petitioner No.1 herein came to Respondent No.1, had taken away Respondent No.3 herein and all the Petitioners used to demand her to agree for their terms, else, they would put an end to the life of Respondent No.3 herein. i. Petitioner No.1 is now looking after the business and getting income not less than Rs.1,00,000 /- per month. Petitioners 1 and 3 have Ac.18.00 cents of landed property and a terraced house at Arikathota Village and the income derived from the landed property is not less than Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. As such she filed a case in D.V.C.No.7 of 2020 against the Petitioners herein. Petitioners 1 and 3 have Ac.18.00 cents of landed property and a terraced house at Arikathota Village and the income derived from the landed property is not less than Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. As such she filed a case in D.V.C.No.7 of 2020 against the Petitioners herein. Grounds Sought for Quashment 4. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioners 1 to 4 herein filed the present petition on the following grounds: a. Respondent No.1 herein was leading adulterous life with one Khaleel as on the date of filing of the DVC. Therefore, the provisions of Domestic violence are not applicable to the facts of the present case on the ground that Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 are not residing under one roof. b. The voluntary statements given by Respondent No.1 and said Khaleel as to the raid against them in the V.N.Lake Palace Hotel, Vizianagaram and as to the arrangement made by Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 to take one child by each of them and the arrangement to file a mutual divorce by them, were suppressed in DVC case. Due to suppression of these material facts, the DVC is not maintainable. c. The scope of DVC is very limited as to whether there is urgent requirement of the wife as to her maintenance or residence because of domestic violence. Since Respondent No.1 is not residing with Petitioner No.1, the question of domestic violence does not arise. d. A wife leading adulterous life is not entitled to the maintenance and thereby Respondent No.1 herein cannot maintain the DVC case against the Petitioners. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 5. Heard Sri G.U.R.C.Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners, and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.4. Despite service of notice, none appeared for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Respondent No.1 has been leading an adulterous life with one Khaleel and she has not been living with Petitioner No.1 herein, as such, the question of domestic violence does not arise. It is also stated that Petitioner No.1 also filed F.C.O.P.No.231 of 2020 on the file of Family Court against Respondent No.1 herein and Shaik Khaleel seeking divorce on the ground of adultery and the same is pending. It is also stated that Petitioner No.1 also filed F.C.O.P.No.231 of 2020 on the file of Family Court against Respondent No.1 herein and Shaik Khaleel seeking divorce on the ground of adultery and the same is pending. It is also pointed out that by suppressing the actual facts of the illegal intimacy with said Khaleel, Respondent No.1 herein filed the present DVC. It is also pointed out that the allegations leveled in the DVC are baseless and omnibus. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners herein is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the DVC against the Petitioners. 7. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that Petitioners herein subjected Respondent No.1 to domestic violence and there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioners. It is also stated that there are no tenable grounds to quash the case against Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/Respondents in D.V.C.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, Vizianagaram District? Determination by the Court 9. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that, Respondent No.1 has been leading adulterous life with one Shaik Khaleel, who is running a medical shop and when they both were in a room of V.Z.M.Sunlake Palace Hotel on 09.09.2019, Police and Petitioner No.1 caught them and they both admitted about their illicit relationship. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that, Respondent No.1 has been leading adulterous life with one Shaik Khaleel, who is running a medical shop and when they both were in a room of V.Z.M.Sunlake Palace Hotel on 09.09.2019, Police and Petitioner No.1 caught them and they both admitted about their illicit relationship. In support of the said contention, the Petitioners filed the copy of the letter addressed to the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Salur admitting her relationship with said Khaleel. She also stated that she does not want to continue her relation with her husband i.e., Petitioner No.1 herein and she does not want to file any cases against the Petitioner No.1. Respondent No.1 also executed an agreement on 04.01.2020, wherein, she clearly mentioned that she and Khaleel were caught by the Police in a hotel room and in view of the future of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, Petitioner No.1 herein had not given any complaint. It is further stated that she admitted about her guilt and on assurance that she will not repeat the same, Petitioner No.1 allowed her into the matrimonial fold. Thereafter, as she felt guilty, she was unable to live with her husband and as such, both of them wanted to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent. But, subsequently, as Respondent No.1 did not come forward to file divorce petition by mutual consent, Petitioner No.1 herein filed F.C.O.P.No.231 of 2020 against Respondent No.1 herein and said Khaleel on the ground of adultery on 19.02.2020. By suppressing all these facts, Respondent No.1 filed the present DVC with all false and untenable allegations against the Petitioners herein. 11. Perusal of the record discloses that except the omnibus and bald allegations, there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners. It shows that, Respondent No.1 with a view to harass the Petitioners herein, filed the present DVC by suppressing the actual facts. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, there are no tenable grounds to continue the proceedings against the Petitioners and the same are liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioners/Respondents in D.V.C.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, Vizianagaram District, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.