1. Smt. Swezal Dewangan, respondent No.1 herein, filed a complaint under Section 12 read with Sections 17, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the PWDV Act') alleging torture, cruelty etc., and sought relief of residence and monetary relief as well as compensation for harassing her mentally, against the petitioners herein. The petitioners herein after appearance raised two fold objections that under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the PWDV Act, before passing order dated 7-9-2015 domestic incident report of the Protection Officer has not been obtained and the second objection was also raised that the provisions of the PWDV Act are not applicable against female/petitioner No.3 herein, and the provisions being mandatory, the application deserves to be rejected. The trial Magistrate by its order dated 7-9-2015 passed order under Section 12 (1) of the PWDV Act and also granted monetary relief under Section 20 (1) (d) of the said Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred revision before the Court of Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge by its order dated 30-3-2016 rejected the revision finding no merit. Questioning legality and validity of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/revisional Court, this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been filed.

2. Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the trial Court while passing order under Section 12 (1) of the PWDV Act ought to have necessarily considered the report of the Protection Officer as envisaged under the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the said Act which makes the order vulnerable. He would further submit that female – petitioner No.3 herein is not covered by the provisions of the PWDV Act and both the provisions being mandatory, the trial Court as well as the revisional Court committed manifest illegality in rejecting their objections and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application be dismissed as not maintainable. He would finally submit that the trial Magistrate ought to have called report from the Protection Officer before registration of the case.

3. Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, would submit that it is nowhere indicated in the record that the Magistrate has not considered the domestic inspection report submitted by the Protection Officer, as such, the provision is directory in nature. He would further submit that female is also included within the meaning of relative under Section 2 (q) of the PWDV Act. He would rely upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sandhya Manoj Wankhade v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and others (2011) 3 SCC 650. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be upheld and the petition as framed and filed under Section 482 of the CrPC deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also considered the rival submissions made therein and gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

5. In order to decide the dispute raised herein, it would be appropriate to notice Section 12 (1) of the PWDV Act.

“12. Application to Magistrate.—(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act :

Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.”

6. A focused perusal of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the PWDV Act would show that the Magistrate is required to take into consideration the domestic incident report submitted before him by the Protection Officer. The mandate is consideration before passing the order under Section 12 of the PWDV Act on the complaint of the aggrieved person, in this case respondent No.1 herein. Thus, there is no