Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By this revision, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 8.6.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2010, whereby the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Moth, Jhansi, rejecting the application of the opposite party No. 2, under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as not maintainable, has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Court of Magistrate to decide the same in accordance with law.

3. The facts, as they emerge from the record, are that opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter refered to as the ‘applicant’) filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Moth, Jhansi with allegations that she was married to Preetam Singh (the revisionist No. 1 herein) about 30 years ago and out of their wedlock, a son was born, after about 5 years of their marriage. It was alleged that while she was pregnant, Preetam Singh cursed her for being illeterate and of ordinary looks, and without her consent married Bitti Devi (the revisionist No. 2 herein). After the birth of her son, Bitti Devi used to fight with the applicant whereas her husband used to take side of Bitti Devi, and used to beat her. Ultimately, the applicant was driven out of her matrimonial home. It was alleged that since that time, the applicant had been seeking shelter in her father and brother’s house and had been living in great financial distress, and now, since her father has become old and is unable to maintain her, she was constrained to file the application.

4. This application of the opposite party No. 2 was dismissed as not maintainable by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Moth, Jhansi, by its order dated 22.2.2010, on the ground that violence/harassment, alleged in the application, was of a period prior to the commencement of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, therefore, the application was not maintainable.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2010, the opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Mithila Devi) preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was allowed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi, by its order dated 8.6.2012. It is against this order dated 8.6.2012, the present revision application has been filed.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the alleged atrocities/harassment of Smt. Mithila Devi was during a period when the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was not enacted, therefore, the application of Smt. Mithila Devi was not maintainable, particularly when she has not been residing with the revisionist since much before the commencement of the said Act.

7. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the revisionists, it would be necessary to examine the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

8. Under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, an “aggrieved person” or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act. Accordingly, for the purpose of entitlement to move the application under Section 12 of the Act, the person must be “an aggrieved person” or should be Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the “aggrieved person”. “Aggrieved person” is defined in Section 2(a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as under :

“2(a) :”aggrieved person” 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