JUDGMENT:- Heard Shri. R. D. Shalerao for the petitioner, Shri. S. J. Salunke for respondent No.1 and A.P.P. Shri. K. M. Suryawanshi for respondent No.2.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has sought relief that the Misc. Criminal Application filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Domestic Violence Act") be quashed and set aside as the same being parallel proceedings to the previous proceedings in Misc. Civil Application No.3061 2008 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Beed.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are summarized as below :

The petitioner and the respondent No.1 married on 23.1.2007. Somehow they could not adjust with each other. The respondent No.1 tiled Misc. Civil Application No.306/2008 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Beed. The same came to be decided on 16.5.2009. The copy of the judgment is at Exh. "C" annexed with the petition. Thereafter, Misc. Civil Application No.932/2009 was filed by the respondent No.1 under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and amongst other things. she claimed that she has no source of income and therefore, she should get maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month.

Similarly. she wanted services of Councillor under section 14 of the Domestic Violence Act. 2005, so also for initiating police action and for medical treatment. She also claimed that she should get compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00.000/- and also prayed for protection under section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act. It is argued before this Court that respondent No.2 moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate and there is no compliance of proviso to section J 2( I) of the Domestic Violence Act. Secondly, there are parallel proceedings simultaneously pending viz. one under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and other under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act for getting maintenance. On the other hand, Shri. S. J. Salunke for respondent NO.1 argued that the report was given in the Court by the Protection Officer and therefore, there is no question of compliance of proviso under section 12(1) of the Domestic Violence Act. He drew my attention to section 20( I )(d) and argued that similar reliefs can be claimed under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. Thirdly, he argued that appeal is provided under section 29 and therefore, the present petition need not be entertained.

4. Exh. "E" produced with Writ Petition clearly shows that a report was submitted by the Protection Officer and Nayab Tahsildar. Beed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed. wherein he summarized the complaint made to him by respondent No.1 and reliefs claimed by her and at the end. stated that form No.1 along with application in two copies was submitted with the report. So it is clear that, it is the Protection Officer, who has moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed and Section 12(1) is as follows:

"12. Application to Magistrate.- (1) An aggrieved person 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 this Act:

Provided that before passing any order on such application. the Magistrate shall take in to consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider."

This proviso is applicable only in case the application is made to the Magistrate by aggrieved party or any other person on behalf of aggrieved party. The Magistrate is free to pass an order, if report is submitted by the Protection Officer himself or the service provider and therefore, there is no bar of proviso of section 12( I) of the Domestic Violence Act. Here the order passed is of issuance of notice to the present petitioner. calling upon him to appear in the matter.

5. So far as the second su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document