1] Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. Heard parties.

2] By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner – original accused is challenging the order dated 8th January 2013 issuing process, which order has been passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai in C.C.No.3493/SS/2012.

3] The respondent No.1 – complainant filed a complaint alleging offences punishable under section 4 read with 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short “said Act”) and section 292(2)(a) of the Indian Penal Code.

4] The complaint proceeds on the footing that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 were married but they are residing separately in the matrimonial home at 102, Mittal Ocean View, Juhu Tara Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054.

5] They are co-owners of the said flat. The respondent No.1 alleges that she resides in the master bed room whereas the petitioner resides in the other bed room. They have common hall, balcony and kitchen. The petitioner accused also has a house in Delhi. He has been residing at Delhi since March 2011. The petitioner accused comes to Mumbai only when the proceedings before the Family Court in Petition No.A-1301 of 2010 are to be heard. In his stay at Mumbai he resides in the other room occupied by him.

6] After narrating as to how the parties were married on 31st October 1998, according to Hindu Vedic rites and ceremonies, it is alleged that on account of their disputes, the petitioner filed the above petition in the family court for dissolution of their marriage by invoking section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

7] The respondent No.1 alleges that they had a pet dog in the matrimonial home who was attached to respondent No.1 complainant. That dog was removed by the petitioner accused from the matrimonial house to the native place at Jaipur. The respondent No.1 complainant states that since March 2011, she adopted two dogs and brought them to her matrimonial home for her safety and security, since she is all alone. There are two domestic male servants. The application in the family court and the disputes which are raised therein are referred to in para 7 to 9 of the complaint.

8] In paras 10 to 14 of the complaint at pages 29 and 30, this is what is stated:-

“10. On 20th July 2012, the accused was home all through the morning and went out at about 3.30 p.m. The complainant was busy in her household chores when suddenly she saw her two male servants giving her strange looks and giggling and whispering between themselves. On seeing the strange behaviour of the male servants, complainant became suspicious and asked them the reason. On this one of the servants told her to go inside the room of accused and see for herself what “Saheb” has done.”

“11. The complainant went inside the room and she was shocked and horrified to see that the accused had made two pornographic paintings on the wall, one on a canvass and the other on the wall. The painting on the canvass on the wall depicted a man and a woman in a most vulgar, obscene, sexual pose with the image of the accused in the background. The other painting depicted a half naked woman with two dogs in the picture and something going from a dog towards the woman. The said painting was a very suggestive and obscene painting. The third painting was on the cupboard of the accused where he had written “Lust” “Lost”. The complainant felt absolutely embarrassed and humiliated seeing all the vulgar, obscene, suggestive, pornographic paintings and felt very nervous and shameful and when she turned back, she saw both the servants smiling and giving lewd and lascivious looks. The complainant somehow gathered courage and asked both the servants to go and do their work.”

“12. The complainant was so overwhelmingly distraught that she could not bear the