The main legal point established is that the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, encompasses past relationships, allowing even a divorced woman to seek protection under the Act.

By the Court.-Leave to amend so as to annex a copy of the order dated 9.2.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 84/2006/A.

2. The, above petitions raise a common issue as to whether a divorced woman can me an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to for brevity sake as 'the said Act'). Insofar as Writ Petition No. 18/2009 is concerned, the said Writ Petition challenges the order dated 9.2.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 84/2006/A by the learned J.M.F.C., Mapusa and the order dated 2.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2007 whereby the order dated 9.2.2007 came to be confirmed. Insofar as Writ Petition No. 64/2009 is concerned, the said Writ Petition challenges the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, by which order the order dated 30.9.2008 passed by the learned J.M.F,C., Mapusa, rejecting the application med by the respondent No.1 under Section 258 of Criminal Procedure Code came to be set aside. The said application resultantly came to be allowed and the respondent No.1 came to be discharged from the proceedings in question.

3. The facts necessary to be stated for the adjudication of the issue concerned are stated thus :

The petitioner in the above two Petitions was married to the respondent No.1 herein, which marriage came to annulled in view of the Decree dated 19.9.1998 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 70/95/A. The petitioner though divorced was staying in the matrimonial house from which she was ousted by the respondent No.1 allegedly by force. The petitioner claims to be suffering from a heart ailment as a result of which she has undergone Angiography. On the petitioner being evicted from the matrimonial house, she had started residing with her parents at Kasarpal, Bicholim. The brothers of the petitioner are interested in demolishing the said house and, therefore, in the event of demolition the petitioner would be left shelterless. The petitioner is working as a Nurse and she used to come to her work place from the said matrimonial house. In view of the fact that the petitioner was forced out of the matrimonial house, the petitioner sought to invoke the provisions of the said Act and especially Section 17 thereof claiming right to reside in the shared household. The said application of the petitioner came to be numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 84/2006/A. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned J.M.F.C., principally on the ground that there was no subsisting relationship between the aggrieved parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondent No.1 on the date of the application and, therefore, the petitioner could not seek the protection under Section 17 of the said Act. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., the petitioner carried the matter in appeal by filing Criminal Appeal No. 14/2007 in the Sessions Court, Mapusa. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 2.7.2007 dismissed the said appeal on the self same ground as the learned J.M.F.C., namely that there was no subsisting relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 on the date of the application and since the petitioner is a divorced wife she could not avail of the remedies available under the said Act. The matter rested there for some time as the petitioner did not have the necessary wherewithal to challenge the said orders, but has now challenged them by filing the above Writ Petition No. 18 of 2009.

4. On the petitioner again facing domestic violence, the petitioner reported the matter to the Protection Officer under the said Act. The Protection Officer called upon the petitioner to fill up two forms which are statutory forms for declaring the nature of the violence faced by an aggrieved party. The petitioner accordingly filled the said two forms. The Protection Officer thereafter sent the said two forms a