Rule. Made returnable forthwith.

The petitioner has applied for quashing of the order dated 21st October, 2010 passed by the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan on 21st October, 2010 and the dismissal of the appeal therefrom on 8th August, 2011 by the additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan.

2. The respondent No.1 who is the wife of petitioner No.1 filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) for various reliefs under Section 17 to 22 of the Act and an application under Section 23 of the Act for interim and ex-parte order. The petitioners made an application for dismissal of her application on the ground that an application under the DV Act cannot be made against any adult female person under Section 2(q) of the Act which defines the term “respondent”.

3. The petitioners also made the application that the application under the DV Act was not in a prescribed form which was mandatory under Section 12 as well as under Section 23 of the Act and that the applicant has not furnished details of the previous litigation required under form II.

4. The DV Act is a beneficial legislation. It is meant for protection of violated women. It is upon the acceptance that such women may not have the necessary legal advice.

5. It has been held by this Court that the DV Act being a beneficial and protective legislation for violated women, its provisions cannot be construed strictly. Hence in the case of Vishal Damodar Patil Vs. Vishakha Patil 2009 Cr.L.J. 107 : (2008 ALLMR (Cri) 2845] it has been held that an interim relief can be claimed without a separate interim application moved. Similarly in the case of Raosaheb Pandharinath Kamble Vs. Shaila Raosaheb Kamble 2010 Cr.L.J. 3596 : (2010 ALLMR (Cri) 2143] it has been held that the proceedings under Act are quasi civil nature. Amendments thereto also can be allowed.

6. This has been followed in the case of Nandkishor s/o. Damodar Vinchurkar Vs. Kavita W/o. Nandkishor Vinchurkar in a Criminal Application No.2970 of 2008 dated 5th August, 2009 : (2009 ALLMR (Cri) 2628] in which a report of the Protection Officer is held not to be mandatorily required to grant interim relief. It is observed:

“If the trial Court, who is required to pass an interim order, keeps on waiting to get the report of the Protection Officer or Service Provider, it would entail the delay and the idea of considering the case of a needy person at the interim stage will be actually defeated.

7. Consequently it is held that when the necessary material is placed before the Court in an application and the reply the provisions relating to calling for report need not be adhered.

8. Hence it is held in the case of Karimkhan Vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 Cr.L.J. 4793 : (2011 ALLMR (Cri) 3233] that the interpretation of such a protective and beneficial legislation should be to further its objects and not to be bogged down by technicalities.

9. Consequently in the case of Manoj. Harikisanji Changani Vs. Prema Shrinivas Changani in Criminal Application No. 564 of 2011 decided on 11th January, 2012: (2012 ALLMR (Cri) 1201] it has been held that the Protection Officer's report is not mandatory and it is discretionary for the Court to call for it. Since the format of the report is devised keeping in view the exploratory aspects and approach of the Act. The Protection Officer has to explore and retrieve the information on various aspects included in the format and inquire or investigate into the illtreatment meted out to the applicant. Various other connected matters would surface and the Protection Officer would bring the reality on record. It is also observed that there are various violated women who would claim protection under the Act. They would not be equipped to draft an application showing all the particulars. Some others could have obtained legal advice and would be able to do so on their own. The domestic violence report would be required in the former cases and not