Pankaj Bhandari, J.

1. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 25.03.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur who allowed the appeal filed by the wife and set-aside the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No.16, Jaipur, Metropolitan, Jaipur who had dismissed the criminal complaint filed by the wife.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was married to respondent No. 1 in the year 1984. She left the matrimonial home in the year 1986 and started residing with her brother-in-law Kishan. The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act read with Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act, wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner gave beating to the complainant in the year 2011. Respondent claimed Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance under Section 20 of the Act. The trial Court rejected the application aggrieved by which the respondent preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court has reversed the order passed by the trial Court and awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

3. It is contended that the explanation of Section 3 provides that whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes domestic violence under this section the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.

4. It is contended that since the respondent was living separately since 1986 and the complaint was filed in the year 2012 after a lapse of 16 years and 7 years after the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the same did not fall under the definition of Domestic Violence.

5. It is contended that the trial Court looked into the entire aspects of the case and rejected the application filed by the respondent. The Appellate Court has erred in allowing the appeal of the respondent and awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

6. It is also contended that during the intervening period right from year 1984 to year 2012 and till date no criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner to establish commission of Domestic Violence. It is also contended that the impugned orders do not make a mention of any domestic incident report. Since the proviso to Section 12 makes it mandatory for the Court to take into consideration a domestic incident report received from the Protection Officer or the service providers. The grant of maintenance by the Appellate Court was a perversity committed by the Appellate Court.

7. Counsel for the respondent wife has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has retrospective operation and wife is entitled to maintenance.

8. It is also contended that the definition of domestic violence has a very wide implication and includes economic abuse as well and since the petitioner deprived the respondent wife from the financial resources, it tantamounts to domestic violence.

9. It is also contended that the petitioner has entered into a second marriage and the respondent is looking-after her children hence the Appellate Court has not committed any illegality in awarding Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance. It is also contended that the respondent till date continues to be legally married wife as petitioner has not obtained any divorce decree against the respondent and she is entitled to maintenance from her husband.

10. I have considered the contentions of counsel for the parties and have perused the orders passed by the Court below.

11. From the perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it is apparent that few months after the marriage the respondent left the house and started residing with her brother-in-law Kishan the respondent has also admitted this fact. It has also come in evidence of mother of the respondent that her daughter and son-in-law never stayed