ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondents in D.V.C. No. 123 of 2011 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to quash the proceedings therein.

2. Having heard the case, a learned Judge of this Court did not concur with the view taken by another learned Judge of this Court in A. Sreenivasa Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl. Pet. No. 7124 of 2008 dated 1.4.2011 and referred the following question to a Division Bench for decision:

Whether the domestic relationship between wife and husband ceases on obtaining a divorce in spite of they sharing a household, at some of point of time, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage?

3. Heard Mr. Javed Razack, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Public Prosecutors for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

4. It was the case of the petitioners that no provision of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short Act, 2005) enables a divorced wife to seek reliefs under Sections 18 to 23 of the Act, 2005, that the first respondent ceased to be the wife of the first petitioner long prior to the filing of the DVC and hence, no ground was made out for the first respondent to maintain the DVC. Continuation of proceedings in the DVC, as per the petitioners, amounts to abuse of process of law as the DVC itself was not maintainable once there was no domestic relationship existing between the parties at the time of its filing. The petitioners relied on the unreported judgment of this Court in A. Sreenivasa Rao (supra), wherein a learned Judge of this Court held that when the marriage between the parties stood dissolved and when there was no relationship of husband and wife existing between them, the case under Act, 2005, prima-facie, is not maintainable.

5. Section 12 of Act, 2005 prescribes that an aggrieved person, as defined under Section 2(a) thereof or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the said Act.

6. Section 18 of Act, 2005 deals with Protection Order, Section 19 speaks of a Residence Order, Section 20 deals with Monetary Reliefs, Section 21 deals with Custody Orders, Section 22 deals with Compensation Orders and Section 23 speaks of power to grant interim and ex-parte orders with regard to property.

7. Section 2 of Act, 2005, defines various expressions occurring in the said Act. Relevant of those are extracted hereunder:

(a) "aggrieved person" means 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.

(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.

(q) "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 this Act:

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.

(s) "Shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in the domestic relationship either singly or alongwith 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 th