P.K. Lohra, J.

These two revision petitions under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. are arising out of common judgment dated 3rd of December, 2016, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned appellate Court') in cross appeals preferred by rival parties against order dated 6th of August, 2015, passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned trial Court'), and therefore, both are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

2. The facts apposite are that Miss Khushi and Miss Mahima, minor daughters of Smt Babita, filed a complaint before learned trial Court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'Act of 2005') through their guardian grandfather Shri Bhanwar Singh claiming maintenance and other allowances besides other reliefs. Along with complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, a separate petition was also laid under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 for claiming interim relief. It is, inter-alia, pleaded in the complaint under Section 12 as well as petition under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 that both the parents have deserted the applicants, and therefore, they are living under the guardianship of their grandfather. Insinuating non-applicant Babita for her violent and atrocious behaviour, in the petition under Section 23 of the Act of 2005, interim maintenance is craved for to the tune of Rs. 10,000 per month besides other amounts. A specific fact is incorporated in the petition that their guardian, grandfather, has become old and he is facing many financial constraints, therefore, is unable to maintain them.

3. The application for interim relief is contested by non-applicant Smt. Babita and finally learned trial Court, after considering rival submissions, partly allowed the petition and awarded interim maintenance for a sum of Rs. 3000/- to each of the applicant, collectively @ Rs. 6,000/- per month.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned trial Court, rival parties preferred two separate appeals under Section 29 of the Act of 2005 before Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, and subsequently, both those appeals were transferred to learned appellate Court. Learned appellate Court heard arguments of both the parties and, while fully concurring with the findings of learned trial Court, dismissed both the appeals.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

6. The Act of 2005 is intended to protect women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in the society. There remains no quarrel that general object of the Act of 2005 is to restrict domestic violence of any kind against women but at the same time the enactment is gender neutral. The Supreme Court, in case of Hiral P. Harsora & Ors. v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Ors. [2017 Criminal Law Journal 509], while considering definition of "Respondent" within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Act of 2005, struck down word "Adult Male" and held that physical, verbal, emotional, sexual & economic abuse can all be committed by one woman against another. While considering the meaning of "Domestic Relationship" as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the Act of 2005, the Court further held that the definition is wide and covers both the sexes and persons related by blood or marriage.

7. Therefore, Mrs. Babita, being mother of both the minor daughters, cannot shirk from her responsibility to take care of them, nor she can be allowed to perpetrate atrocities or violence against them. It goes without saying that a complaint/application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 can be filed by an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer of any other person on behalf of aggrieved person. As in the instant case, both the petitioners are minors and living with their grandfather, therefore, the complaint/application was competent and in accordance with