The interesting question which is raised in this revision is as to whether a divorced wife is entitled to file a petition under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) claiming return of dowry and ornaments and also for maintenance payable under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

2. I heard Adv.Sri.Padmakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Adv.Sri.R.Reji, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

3. Thefacts leading to the impugned proceedings are the following:-

The marriage between the first respondent, Shibu and the revision Petitioner, Priya was solemnised on 17.4.2003. Their post marital life lasted only for about one year. In November, 2004 the marital partners parted company. Subsequently as per order dated 15.2005 passed by the Family Court, Alappuzha, their marriage was dissolved and a decree of divorce was passed. On 11.2007, the revision petitioner, Priya moved the JFCM, Mavelikkara by filing CMP 278/2007 under Section 12(1) of the Act claiming the following reliefs:-

1) to register a case against her former husband, Shibu, mother-in-law, Retnamma, Sister-in-law Sheeja, brother-in-law, Sunil Kumar and Sunil Kumars wife, Sheeba under Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

2) To direct the aforementioned persons to return Rs.59,000/-and 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments received by them at the time of the marriage of Priya with Shibu.

3) To order a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the applicant from the respondents.

4) to direct the respondents not to intimidate or otherwise cause any difficulties to the applicant and to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/-for the mental and physical loss sustained by the applicant on account of the domestic violence committed by the respondents. The revision petitioner also filed CMP 284/2007 under Section 23 of the said Act for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/-per month and for return of the sum of Rs.59,000/-and 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments paid as dowry. On 11.2007, the learned Magistrate passed an ex-parte order directing the counter petitioners to CMP 284/2007 to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-per month by way of maintenance to the applicant, Priya from the month of January 2007 onwards. Respondents 1 to 3 herein, who were the counter petitioners to CMP 284/2007, filed an appeal under Section 29 of the Act as Crl.Appeal 89 of 2007 before the Additional Sessions Court II, Mavelikkara challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate. As per the impugned judgment dated 10.4.2007 the leaned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to dispose of the main application filed as CMP 278/2007 on merits, according to law. In the course of the judgment, the Additional Sessions Judge took the view that going by the definition of `aggrieved person contained in Section 2(a) and the definition of `domestic relationship contained in Section 2(f) of the Act, unless the applicant has the resent status as a `wife or is at least in a `domestic relationship with the respondent on the date of the application, she cannot maintain an application under Section 12 of the Act and if so, no interim order also could be granted to the applicant under Section 23 of the Act. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision by the applicant.

4. Adv. Sri.Reji, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 made the following submission before me in support of the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court:-

The person who can move the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act is an ‘aggrieved person as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act. The definition of ‘aggrieved person is any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent. The words employed are `who is or `has been which mean that she should be presently in a domestic relationship with the respondent or the domestic relation