(1) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Smt. Hema alias Hemlata and Rajni, challenging the order dated May 3, 2008 of Special Judge (SC and ST Cases) Alwar in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2007 reversing the order dated August 8, 2007 of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Alwar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1/2008/2007 by which application filed by petitioners under Section 12 read with Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was allowed and the respondent was directed to make payment of maintenance of Rs. 1000 each to the petitioners.

(2) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioners submitted an application under Section 12 read with Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for maintenance allowance and relief before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Alwar. It was alleged in the application that the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 Hema was solemnised with the respondent on June 30, 1998 and out of the wed lock a daughter was born. The respondent tortured and harassed his wife for dowry and subjected her to domestic violence and on one occasion the respondent thrown the petitioner No. 1 into the well but by God's grace and help of the people residing in the locality she was taken to Hospital and her life was saved. On 3-9-2003 the marriage of the parties was dissolved by a decree of consent divorce. At the relevant time, no arrangement for maintenance of the petitioners was made by the respondent. It was alleged that the respondent is having 30 big has of land and earning Rs. 2.00 lac per year. The petitioners, therefore, made a request for granting interim maintenance of Rs. 3000 per month. The respondent submitted reply to the application and stated that divorce was already taken place and the case of the petitioners does not come within the definition of domestic relationship and the application under Section 12 of the Act is not maintainable and Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. After hearing both the sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alwar accepted and allowed the application for interim maintenance by passing a reasoned and cogent order on August 8, 2007 and directed the respondent to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 1000 each to the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the respondent submitted an appeal before the Court of Special Judge (SC and SC Cases) Alwar who vide order dated May 3, 2008 accepted and allowed the same and quashed the order dated August 8, 2007 of Judicial Magistrate. It was held that the case of the petitioners does not come within the purview and provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Hence this petition has been filed by the petitioners against this order. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 2A of the Act of 2005 defines the word "aggrieved person". It means any woman who is, or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. The learned counsel submitted that this definition is very clear that an aggrieved person means any woman who has been in domestic relationship with the respondent and who has been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. The petitioner No. 1 has been in domestic relationship with the respondent and she was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent. Under these circumstances, the provisions of the Act of 2005 are quite applicable in the instant case. Similarly, the provisions of Section 20(1)(d) of the Act are applicable and the petitioners are entitled for monitory relief of maintenance from the respondent. As per Section 27 of the Act of 2005 the Judicial Magistrate was having jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the application filed by the petitioners for maintenance. The appellate Court has seriously erred in holding that the Act of 2005