RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

1. Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an independent and original proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "PWDV Act" for short) and grant any of the reliefs under section 18 to 12 of the Act? This is the moot question raised by the petitioner in this case.

2. The petitioner herein is the respondent in M.C. No. 367 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The aforesaid petition has been filed by the respondent herein under Section 12 of the PWDV Act seeking a residence order and monetary reliefs. The maintainability of the original application itself is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Skeletal facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner married the 1st respondent in the year 2007 and in course of time, the relationship ran into rough weather. This led to the filing of a petition seeking divorce by the respondent before the Family Court, Ernakulam as O.P. (HMA) No. 1451 of 2014. It appears that the said petition was allowed ex-parte. An application seeking to set aside the order was filed which is pending before the Court below. While so, the instant petition was filed under Section 12 of the PWDV Act before the Family Court, Ernakulam as M.C. No. 367 of 2015 under Section 19 and 20 of the PWDV Act with a prayer to direct the petitioner (i) to secure alternate accommodation for the respondent or to pay monthly rent; (ii) for monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- and (iii) to direct payment of compensation of Rs. 50 Lakhs. Though an objection was filed by the petitioner, the Family Court by order dated 21.10.2016 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as maintenance to the respondent and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as rent for availing appropriate accommodation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the above order. According to the petitioner, the original petition itself is not maintainable before the Family Court.

4. I have heard Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court was having no jurisdiction to entertain an independent application claiming relief under PWDV Act. It is argued by the learned Counsel that by virtue of Section 12 of the PWDV Act, the aggrieved person has to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for obtaining orders of reliefs. By Section 26 of the PWDV Act, if any legal proceeding is pending before a Civil Court, a Family Court or a Criminal Court, the reliefs available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 can also be sought in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding even if such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of the PWDV Act. But no independent application can be maintained before the Courts enumerated in Section 26 of the PWDV Act, is the submission. According to the learned counsel, the proceedings before the Family Court is clearly an abuse of process and the same is liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel would rely on the decision of a Division Bench of the Chattisgarh High Court in Smt. Neetu Singh vs. Sunil Singh, AIR 2008 (Chattisgarh) 1 and that of the Orissa High Court in Smt. Kumari Behara vs. State of Orissa and Others, AIR 2010 Orissa 68 to canvass the legal proposition advanced.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would urge that a broad interpretation is to be given to the relevant provisions as the Act is intended for extending succor for the women who are at the receiving end of rampant domestic violence. It is contended that the application before the Family Court was perfectly maintainable as the application for setti