The legal point established is that the existence of a domestic relationship, despite the absence of cohabitation, renders a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 maintainable. The court also emphasized the civil nature of the proceeding and the different standard of proof required compared to criminal proceedings.

MD. MUMTAZ KHAN, J.

1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 401 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 being Misc. Case No. 92/2018 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Tamluk.

2. It was submitted by Ms. Minoti Gomes, the learned advocate for the petitioners that the proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 brought out by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioners is not maintainable since there was no existence of marital relations either with her husband or the other family members of the petitioner no.1namely the present petitioners since the year 2010 when she lodged the complaint against them before the Magistrate under section 498A IPC. She also submitted that in the year 2011 opposite party No.2 brought out one application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. praying for maintenance and the maintenance was granted in her favour and the husband (Petitioner no.1) is regularly paying the maintenance which the opposite party no.2 has suppressed in her application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. Ms. Gomes further submitted that in the year 2010 opposite party no.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners before the learned CJM, Purba Mednipur alleging cruelty under section 498A IPC which the learned Magistrate found the charge against the petitioners not sustainable and acquitted them. But in spite of that and after a long gap of eight years opposite party no.2 has initiated the instant proceeding under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 over the self same facts. According to Ms. Gomes, initiation of proceeding under Domestic Violence Act with an identical allegations, from which petitioners were acquitted, after a long time without any satisfactory explanation for such inordinate delay is not maintainable and such proceeding is abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.

4. Ms. Gomes relied upon the decisions of Kishan Singh Vs. Gurpal Singh reported in, AIR 2010 SC 3624, Jai Singh and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. reported in, (2010) 9 SCC 385, Vijaya Vasant Sawant Vs. Subhangi Shivling Parab reported in, (2013) CriLJ 3592, Amit Agarwal and Ors. Vs. Sanjay Aggarwal and Ors. reported in, (2017) 1 AICLR 741, (Pubjab and Haryana High Court) and of Shibanikar and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in, (2017) 2 GauLT 622 in support of her submissions.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no.2 while admitting that since 2010 opposite party no.2 is not residing with the petitioners submitted that marital tie of the opposite party no.2 with the petitioner no.1 has not yet been dissolved by any decree of divorce and the domestic relation between the parties is still subsisting and as such proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act,2005 is quite maintainable.

6. He further submitted that the proceedings under Section 498A IPC and under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are quite different, standing on different footings and acquittal of the petitioners from the charge under Section 498A IPC will have no bearing on the proceeding under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. According to him, the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 shall be dealt with in the same manner as applicable to a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and as there is no limitation for initiation of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the same is equally applicable to the proceeding under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and gone through the materials on record and the relevant provisions of law.

8. Section 2(a) of the Prot