Heard.

1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to exercise inherent jurisdiction for quashing the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Appeal No.98/2015 dated 16.11.2015 maintaining the order dated 04.09.2015, passed by the Court of J.M.F.C., Durg in dismissing the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners.

2. Petitioners have raised the question, whether the protection provided under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as 'the Act of 2005') is available to a divorcee wife.

3. It is submitted that marriage of petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.06.1994 and due to differences between them, respondent No.2 left her matrimonial house on 20.10.2006 and thereafter a decree of divorce was granted by the competent Court on 15.04.2010, which is an admitted fact.

4. Respondent No.2 filed an application on 10.12.2014 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg under the provisions of Section 12, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act of 2005 submitting that after the decree of divorce dated 15.04.2010, respondent No.2 along with her children is residing in the house, which was purchased by the petitioner No.1 in the year 2002 from Bhilai Steel Plant. During her residence in this house in question, petitioner along with other unsocial elements is regularly disturbing the peace by using abusive words and interfering in the affairs of the house in possession of the respondent No.2, which has resulted in complaint lodged by both the sides in police Station Sector-6, Bhilai. It was also stated that petitioner No.1 is not making any arrangement for education and maintenance of children and Stridhan of respondent No.2 has not been returned by petitioner No.1. On this ground it was prayed that order be passed for return of Stridhan and a protection order be passed for non-interference in the affairs of respondent No.2, order be passed to compensate the expenses made by the respondent No.2, order be passed for monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- for maintenance and education of children in custody of respondent No.2 and also prayed for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the petitioners.

5. Preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner No.1 that decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the petitioner no.1 by the judgment dated 15.04.2010 by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg and this decree was appealed by the respondent No.2 before the High Court and that appeal has been dismissed. Consequent to this situation, the respondent No.2 can not be regarded to be in any domestic relationship as it is defined in Section 2(f) of the Act of 2005. For this reason, respondent No.2 can not be regarded as entitled to file a complaint under the Act of 2005. Hence, the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg is not maintainable.

6. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.2 that decree of divorce in this case had not been on the basis of mutual consent of the parties. Status of wife in a case for divorce which is contested stands differently. Wife is defined in Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is applicable to the proceeding under the Act of 2005. Hence this petition is not maintainable.

7. Counsel for the respondent No.1 duly assisted the Court.

8. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed in case of Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 588, in which it was held that in a proceeding by wife under the Act of 2005, challenge to the decree of divorce can not be entertained. Reliance has also been placed in Para-18 of judgment passed in case of Krishna Bhatacharjee Vs. Sarathi Choudhury and Anr. reported in (2016) 2 SCC 705, which reads as under :-

“18. The core issue that is requisite to be addressed is whether the appellant has ceased to be an “aggrieved p