IMPORTANT POINT
To initiate proceedings and to make cognizance for the reliefs to be claimed outcome of domestic relationship under Sections 12 r/w 18 to 23 of the Act, the question of application of period of limitation under Chapter XXXVI of the Code does not arise.

B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—The Revision Petitioner, J. Shyam Babu, is the respondent in D.V.C. No. 24 of 2015 on the file of the Court of X.XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar filed against him by his wife, J. Rajini Kumari.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that during pendency of said D.V.C., the revision petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 1121 of 2015 stating therein that said case started in the year 2014 and it came for his cross-examination after 21 months and he made total payments of Rs. 1,50,000/-; that his wife occupied his flat at Manikonda and she created a poisonous atmosphere between her younger brother and himself, which resulted in his brother filing a false case against him that she also got filed a false case against him through her sister and also instigated the land owners to file consumer case; that the behaviour of his wife caused him acute mental cruelty, resulting in deterioration of his health and he was thrown to financial crisis; that he is borrowing amounts to pay maintenance to the children and that the DVC filed by her is not at all maintainable. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the cross-examination of the DVC petitioner (respondent to this application supra) on 01.12.2014, it was stated by her that she was abandoned by him by sending her out in February, 2012 and the DVC filed by her is in January, 2014, which is two years later to it, and there is no domestic relationship subsisting for the two years to accrue cause of action and thereby the DVC is not maintainable and the same is labile to be dismissed. It is also further averment of the petitioner that the respondent looted away his hard earned money and utensils and that they lived for four years before going to Saudi and seven years after coming from Saudi; that she made him to incur Rs. 15 lakhs for her illegal desires; and that he is ready to take welfare of his sons.

3. The said petition was opposed by the DVC Petitioner as respondent to this petition by filing a counter stating that the DVC respondent is prolonging the litigation by filing petition after petition and not even paying regular interim maintenance; that the DVC was originally numbered in the year 2013 fixing the appearance of the DVC respondent in January, 2014; that the DVC respondent filed his chief affidavit in November, 2014 after the evidence of DVC petitioner and but for his evidence, he did not appear before the DVC Court and he has fallen due an amount of Rs. 80,000/- out of the maintenance claim; that the petition is frivolous and vexatious with no any valid grounds and hence to dismiss the DVC Petition.

4. The learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar dismissed the petition by order dated 15.03.2016 observing that the relationship between the parties is covered by domestic relationship under Section 2(f) r/w 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”), and the same cannot be disputed for admittedly she is his wife and the children are his sons in the wedlock. It was further held that even from the decision of Delhi High Court in Vijay Verma v. State NCT of Delhi and another in Crl. M. C. No. 3878 of 2009 dated 13.08.2010 what it says is that if out of the domestic relationship any violence is taking place, the DVC is maintainable, so also from the ‘Other decision of the Delhi High Court in Nagesh Malik v. Payal Malik in CrI. Rev. P. No. 252 of 2010 and batch dated 29.07.2010 and another decision of Sejal Dharmesh Ved v. State of Maharashtra and others in Crl. A. No. 160 of 2011 dated 07.03.2013 and thereby, the petition questioning maintainability of the DVC No. 24 of 2015 has no legs to stand and accordingly dismissed the petition.

5. It is impugning the same, petitioner maintained appeal and went unsuccessful in D.V.C. Appeal No.336 of 2916 vide impugned order dated 01.09.2016 of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. It was