T.V. NALAWADE, J.

1. The petition is filed for relief of quashing and setting-aside Criminal Application No. 126 of 2016 filed by the respondent under the provision of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. Heard both the sides.

3. The submissions made by the learned counsels of both the sides show that marriage of the petitioner took place with respondent No.1 on 19.12.2010. It is contention of the husband that the wife deserted him on 11.05.2011 and then he was required to file proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is contention that the said matter was decided in his favour and the proceeding filed for condonation of delay for file appeal against the said decision by wife came to be dismissed. It is contention of the husband that after decision of the Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act proceeding the wife gave report to Police and crime came to be registered against the husband for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and then the wife filed proceeding in the year 2017 under aforesaid special enactment.

4. The submissions made and the record show that after getting the decree of restitution of conjugal rights the husband filed proceeding for divorce under the provision of Section 13(1)(a) and 13(a)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said proceeding came to be dismissed on 12.01.2017. The learned counsel for the husband submitted that to challenge the said decision, appeal is filed by the husband and it is still pending. In the proceeding filed under Domestic Violence Act, the wife contended that the action of the husband to file proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was not bonafide action and even after getting the decree, he never made attempt to take the wife back to the matrimonial house as he wanted to take only divorce on the basis of such decision.

5. On the point of tenability of the present proceeding, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of full bench of this Court reported as (Nandkishor Vs. Mangla Bansar, 2018 DGLS 224(Bom)). The full bench of this Court has laid down that in view of the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, the proceeding filed under domestic violence Act can be challenged under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner husband submitted that there is point of limitation also involved in the matter. On that point he placed reliance on some observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported two (Indrajeet Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) AllMR(Cri) 369). The facts were different and after considering the provisions of Section 28 and 32 of the Domestic Violence Act and Domestic Violence Rules the Apex Court observed that in some case, there will be point of limitation, in view of the period of one year imprisonment provided in section 32 of the Act. That provision is with regard to breach of the protection order by the respondent and not a matter like present one. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on observation made by the learned Singe Judge of this Court in case reported (Sejal Dharmesh Ved Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2014) AllMR(Cri) 636). In that case when wife had filed proceeding after more than one year of separate residence the Court held that the application was not filed within reasonable time to show that relationship would give her to cause of action to file proceeding under domestic violence Act. She had stayed in U.S.A and after coming to the India she had filed the proceeding.

7. The scheme of the act shows that what is relevant for entertaining the proceeding is domestic relationship, shared house hold and contention of domestic violence. It is not disputed that relationship is still in existence and there was shared house hold. The definations of 'domestic relationship' and shared house hold and the terms in these definition like "at any point