1. In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the Revision Petitioner who was the applicant in C.M.P. 3532 of 2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Adimaly, challenges the order dated 2-2-2010 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the said C.M.P. filed under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("the Act" for short).

2. In the aforesaid application filed by the Revision Petitioner against her husband who was the sole respondent in the application, she claimed reliefs under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act. The application was filed in Form No. II of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 ("the Rules" for short). The learned Magistrate ordered notice on the application to the respondent husband. He, however, refused to accept the notice which was returned unclaimed. Thereafter the learned Magistrate took up the application, proof affidavit and Exts.P1 to P11 (which were marked) and as per the impugned order dated 2-2-2010 dismissed the application as not maintainable holding inter alia that even though the applicant has filed the application in Form II no complaint is filed as contemplated by Sec. 2 (d) Cr.P.C. Hence, this Revision by the applicant.

3. The 2nd respondent who is the husband of the Revision Petitioner has been duly served. But he has not chosen to enter appearance or oppose this Revision.

4. As mentioned earlier, the main ground on which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner is that no complaint as contemplated by Sec. 2 (d) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner. In the course of the impugned order the learned Magistrate has observed as follows:-"In this case eventhough the petitioner has filed an application U/s. Form II and a domestic incident report in Form No. I no complaint is filed as contemplated in Sec. 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. " The learned Magistrate proceeded to hold as follows:-"Sec. 5 of the Act specifically states that the Magistrate shall act upon a complaint of domestic violence. In this case no complaint is filed by the petitioner and the Court cannot find out what are the allegations against the respondent and the facts and circumstances of the case. As per the provisions of the Act the proceedings under this Act shall be commenced upon filing of a complaint either before a police officer, Protection Officer, Service Provider or before the magistrate, as stipulated in Sec. 5. In this case no such complaint is filed by the petitioner. She had sought for reliefs under Sections 18, 19 and 21 of the Act."

5. I am afraid that the learned Magistrate has misconceived the object and purpose of the Act in question. The expression "domestic violence" has been defined in a very elaborate manner under Sec. 3 of the Act. The reliefs which can be granted by the Magistrate in an application under Sec. 12 read with Rule 6 of the Rules and Form - II are:-i) Protection Order under Sec. 18 ii) Residence Order under Sec. 19 iii)Monitory Relief under Sec. 20 iv) Compensation Order under Sec. 22 v) Interim custody Order under Sec. 21 vi)Compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of violence committed by the respondent - Section 12 (2) Eventhough as indicated by Sections 12 and 27 of the Act, the forum to be approached for the above reliefs is the Court of the Magistrate, the reliefs provided for are all civil remedies. (Vide Sulochana v. Kuttappan -2007 (2) KLT 1; Dr. V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma and Another v. Bindu V. and Others -2010 (1) KHC 57 and Dr. Preceline George @ Antony Preceline George v. State of Kerala and Another -2010 (1) KHC 417). The application to the Magistrate under Sec. 12 (1) can be made by -i) an aggrieved person or ii) a protection officer or iii) any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person "Aggrieved person" has been defined under Sec. 2 (a) as follows: (a) "Aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationshi