IMPORTANT POINT
Remedy under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 covers the act of violence committed even prior to coming into force of the Act and could be taken into consideration by the Magistrate while passing the orders extending the reliefs to the aggrieved person under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act.

Sangeet Lodha, J.— The legal question that falls for our determination in this reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court reads as follows:

“Whether the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be applied retrospectively specially where the aggrieved party (wife) was divorced by the respondent (husband) prior to the Act coming into force on October 26, 2006 or not?”

2. The Background facts giving rise to the legal issue may be summarized thus: Smt. Sabana @ Chand Bai, the petitioner, and Mr. Mohammed Talib Ali, the respondent, entered into marriage on 15.10.2001 according to the Muslim customs and rites. The petitioner alleges that from the very beginning of the marriage, she was treated with physical and mental cruelty by the respondent and the members of her in-laws family. Even during pregnancy and thereafter, the respondent and the members of his family did not take care of the petitioner. It is alleged that on 15.4.2002, despite her pregnancy, she was not only assaulted but was ousted from matrimonial home and thus, in the compelling circumstances, she left for her paternal home. Out of the wedlock, a son was born on 14.10.2002. On 6.2.2003, after a compromise had been reached between the parties, the petitioner returned to her matrimonial home. While she stayed at her matrimonial home, the respondent repudiated the paternity of the child. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had to undergo an operation for removal of uterus and therefore, the respondent and his family members started harassing her saying that she is no more fit for procreating children. On 13.2.2003, she was again beaten and sent back to her paternal home. On 2.5.2003, the respondent filed an application seeking divorce from the petitioner. On 12.7.2003, the petitioner lodged an FIR with the police against the respondent, alleging commission of the offences under Sections 498A & 406 IPC. Subsequently, on 20.9.2003, she also filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Jodhpur. During the pendency of the litigation between the parties, on 4.9.2004, the parties entered into compromise and the petitioner again returned to the matrimonial home. But, the parties could not live together and on 13.5.2005, the petitioner was again dumped at her paternal place by the respondent. Thereafter, on 26.2.2007, after coming into force of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the Act”), the petitioner-Sabana filed an application under Sections 12, 17 to 20 and 23 of the Act before the court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur. The application was contested by the respondent by filing a reply thereto. The parties led their evidence. After due consideration of the evidence on record and rival submissions, the trial court arrived at the finding that after coming into force of the Act i.e. with effect from 26.10.2006, the petitioner never resided with the respondent and therefore, the question of her being subjected to domestic violence by the respondent, does not arise. Relying upon a decision of this court dated 7.1.2009 rendered in the matter of Hema @ Hemlata (Smt.) & Anr. v. Jitender & Anr., (S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.804/08): 2009(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.), 291. the court held that any act of violence committed prior to coming into force of the Act cannot be made basis for initiating proceedings under the Act and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. Accordingly, the petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 12 r/w Sections 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the Act was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 5.6.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Session, which stands dismissed vide order dated 19.4.2011, which is impugned in this revision petition before this Court.

3. During the course of arguments before the learned Single Judge,