M.G. Giratkar, J.

Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

2. The present revision is against the judgment of 25th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1087 of 2009 by which the application of the applicant came to be rejected vide order dated 20th August, 2015. The said judgment was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2015. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 03rd August, 2017.

3. The brief facts, which give rise to filing of the present revision, can be summarized as under -

The applicant/wife had filed an application under Sections 12 and 18 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as "DV Act" for the sake of brevity). The applicant got married with respondent/husband on 15th July, 1999. She delivered two children out of the said wedlock. The respondent had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the family Court. The matter was amicably settled and they started living together on trial basis. Respondent converted the petition for restitution of conjugal rights into divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned family Court allowed the said petition and granted divorce on 30th June, 2008. In the year 2009, the application under Sections 12 and 18 of the DV Act was filed by the applicant alleging domestic violence on the part of the respondent/ husband. The said application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that at the time of filing application, there was no domestic relation. She was not residing with him. She was not wife in view of the divorce granted on 30th June, 2008 and, therefore, her application is liable to be rejected. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence before the learned JMFC, Nagpur, who dismissed the said application by judgment dated 20th August, 2015. In appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur recorded his findings that there was no domestic relationship and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for relief under the DV Act.

4. Heard Smt. A.A. Ghonge, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Shri R.N. Sen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

5. Smt. Ghonge, learned Counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the applicant is entitled for the relief even though she is divorcee. In support of her submission, she has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni .v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another, 2014 1 SCC 736. In the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal .v. State of Punjab and another, (2011) 9 Scale 295, the apex Court has considered the judgment in the case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni .v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another (cited supra) and recorded its findings in para 29 that domestic violence took place between January, 2006 and 06.09.2007 on which date FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged by the wife against her husband and his relatives. It is in this context, the apex Court has observed that even if it is accepted that during the pendency of the SLP, the wife has obtained exparte "khula" (divorce) under the Muslim Personal Law from the Mufti on 09.05.2008, the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act is maintainable.

6. In the present case, the applicant is not the wife from the date of decree of divorce i.e. from 30th June, 2008 and, therefore, there is no relationship as husband and wife between them at the time of filing of the application. The judgment in the case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni .v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another (cited supra) is considered by the apex Court in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal .v. State of Punjab and another (cited supra), in which, it is observed that, "in the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission made on behalf of respondent No.2 that t