K. Venkataraman, J.

1. The present Revision Is directed against the order of the II Additional Family Court dated 6-11-2007 made In I.A. No. 2325 of 2007 in O.S. No. 101 of 2007.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the above referred suit and the defendant thereon is the respondent. The petitioner laid the suit against the respondent before the above referred Court for declaration that he and the respondent herein are not married to each other and for consequential injunction restraining her from representing and receiving the benefits as his wife and for costs. In the said proceeding, the respondent had taken out an application in I.A. No. 2325 of 2007 for maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month for food, cloth, shelter and other basic necessities. The said application was filed under Section 20 read with Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said application by an order dated 6-11 -2007, the learned Judge of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/-per month as maintenance to the respondent herein from the date of petition till the disposal of the suit. The said order is canvassed in this Revision.

3. Mrs. Sudha Ramalingam, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance since the petitioner and the respondent have not lived together at any point of time and hence the respondent cannot claim protection under any of the provisions of the "The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005" (hereinafter called as "the Act"). Further, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Section 12 of the Act contemplates report from the Protection Officer so as to enable the learned Judge to pass an order of maintenance. Further according to the learned Counsel, the respondent is not an aggrieved person and hence she cannot file an application seeking maintenance.

4. Per contra, Mr. J. Saravanvel, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that even as per the petitioner as put forth by him in his counter affidavit there was a close relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and hence the petitioner la liable to maintain the respondent. Further according to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, the report from the Protection Officer has to be obtained, only if an application is filed before a Magistrate, by an aggrieved person and the report of the Protection Officer Is not necessary if an application is filed before the Family Court. Thus, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, the learned Judge of the II Additional Family Court at Chennai has considered those aspects and ordered maintenance to the respondent.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent.

6. The petitioner in para 5 of this plaint has stated as follows:

They have only had voluntary intercourse sometimes as friends but there was no promise to marry or marriage between the parties hereto. As persons belonging to the theatre and stage, it was normal for like minded persons as friends to casually have intercourse without any thought of marriage. Both parties were interested in the advancement of their career, they did not think of marriage. To his knowledge, she had not conceived.

7. Again in paragraph 7 of the plaint the petitioner has averred as follows:

7. The plaintiff admits that the parties hereto had voluntary sexual contact at time there was no occasion for the plaintiff to go and live with the defendant. He resides with his parents in M.G.R. Nagar. He has categorically told the defendant that he does not believe in the institution of marriage. Knowing his views, the defendant had voluntary sexual contact without insisting on matrimony. Had there been even a slight reference to marriage as a pre-condition to the sexual contact, the plaintiff would never have had even the casual contact he had wit