The main legal point established in the judgment is that for Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to be attracted, there must be a breach of a specific protection order. The absence of a specific protection order against the respondent led to the dismissal of the complaint.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. The present revision petition U/s 397, 401 R/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"(a) Set-aside the impugned order dismissing the Complaint- Case of the Petitioner, CT Case 3883/2018, under section 31, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, titled Neha Chaturvedi Vs. Gagan Chaturvedi, by the Learned Ms. Ritu Singh, hon'ble Court of the Metropolita Magistrate, MM-02 (East), Karkardooma District Courts, Delhi, dated 18-12-2019;

(b) Call for the record of the CT Case 3883/2018, under section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, titled Neha Chaturvedi Vs. Gagan Chaturvedi, by the Ld. Ms. Ritu Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, MM-02 (East), Karkardooma District Courts, Delhi, not yet consigned to the Record Room;

(c) Call for the record of the disposed of case of the Petitioner under section 12 of the DV Act titled Neha Chaturvedi Vs. Gagan Chaturvedi and another. No. 58V/13, by Learned Ms. Richa Parihar, MM-02 (East), Karkardooma District Courts, Delhi, on 27.11.2014, from the Ld. Ms. Ritu Singh, the successor Presiding Officer, MM-2 (East), Karkardooma District Courts, Delhi; and (d) Pass such other and further order/s that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The petitioner by way of the present revision petition has challenged the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02/East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi vide which the Ld. MM, Mahila Court-02 has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner U/s 31 (1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This complaint had been filed by the petitioner for the prosecution of accused husband on the ground that he had committed breach of protection order dated 27.11.2014 vide which the Ld. MM Mahila Court, East District had disposed of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on account of mediation settlement between the parties.

3. The said application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was disposed of by the Ld. MM Mahila Court, East District as per the terms and conditions of the mediation settlement. The petitioner has alleged that her husband (respondent No.2 herein) has failed to comply with the terms of the mediation settlement and again indulged into domestic violence which led to filing of a subsequent complaint under Section 31 (1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This complaint has been dismissed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court- 02/East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi vide impugned order dated 18.12.2019 which is under challenged in the present revision petition.

4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State, Ld. counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the records of this case.

5. The relevant para of the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 reads as follows:

"According to section 18 of PWDV Act a protection order shall be passed by Court only after hearing aggrieved party and respondent, on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has been taken place or is likely to take place against aggrieved person. However, perusal of order dated 2.11.2014 shows that in present case on 27.11.2014, after receipt of mediation settlement dated 27.04.2014 statement of both parties were recorded that they would abide by terms of mediation settlement and in view of settlement and statement of both parties, main application u/12 PWDV Act was disposed off in terms of mediation settlement by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. There is nothing in order dated 27.11.2014 to suggest that Ld. Predecessor of this Court had passed any specific protection order against respondent in terms of mandate of section 18 of PWDV Act after recording her prima facie satisfaction that domestic violence has taken place or is likely