The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complaint made under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act does not attract limitation period as it provides civil remedies and does not constitute an offence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The question involved in this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is whether limitation as prescribed under Sec. 468 Cr.P.C is applicable to an application made under Sec. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act ('Act' for short). The factual background necessary for disposal of this petition is as follows:

2. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 25/9/2017. The second respondent is their daughter, she was born on 17/9/2018. On certain allegations that the petitioner and his family members subjected the first respondent to physical and mental harassment, the latter left her matrimonial home one month before the second respondent was born. The first respondent took recourse to legal proceedings to claim maintenance from the petitioner under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., besides lodging an FIR against him in Cr.No.106/2019 for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Sec. 34 IPC. She also made an application under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'the Act') claiming various reliefs. The learned Magistrate before whom the application under Sec. 12 of the Act is pending passed an order on 15/2/2021 granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 to the respondents. The petitioner has challenged this order and has also sought quashing of the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.24/2021 initiated under Sec. 12 of the Act.

3. I have heard the arguments of Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. L.V. Muralidhara, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. It is the argument of Sri. H.P. Leeladhar that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint under Sec. 12 of the Act because the first respondent left the matrimonial home one month before she gave birth to a female baby on 17/9/2018. The complaint, having been filed on 9/2/2021, after lapse of two years five months and twenty one days, is highly time barred. Referring to Sec. 468 of Cr.P.C., he argues that the maximum punishment of imprisonment that can be imposed being up to one year, the complaint made after a lapse of one year is barred by limitation and in this view the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the complaint. He also refers to Sec. 28 of the Act to argue further that since the proceedings under Ss. 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are governed by the provisions of Cr.P.C., Sec. 468 of Cr.P.C. is very much applicable. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on many judgments which I will refer to little later.

5. Sri. L.V.Muralidhara, learned counsel for the respondents meets the argument of Sri. H.P.Leeladhar by submitting that the complaint made under Sec. 12 of the Act does not attract limitation period since the said sec. only enables an aggrieved person or a protection officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person to seek one or more reliefs under the Act. Here the respondents being the aggrieved persons have sought various reliefs that they are entitled to on account of domestic violence that they suffered at the hands of the petitioner. If a complaint is made under Sec. 12 of the Act, it does not mean that an offence is committed. Sec. 12 of the Act provides a remedy to the aggrieved person and the relief granted by the court can be enforced. Therefore it was his argument that the petition made under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and it is to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the arguments. Sri. H.P. Leeladhar has raised an important question of law. To answer this, analysis of some Sec. of the Act is necessary.

7. Sec. 2 (g) states that 'domestic violence' means the meaning assigned to it under Sec. 3. If sec. 3 is read, it is found that any act, omission or commission of the respondent constitutes domestic violence in case it -

3. (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well' being, whether m