IMPORTANT POINT
There is no limitation provided for filing a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.—The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.07.2012 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, District Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2011 as well as order dated 18.08.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Criminal Case No.2441 of 2010 under Section 12/18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violance Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. Respondent No.1 is the daughter of the petitioner who had instituted a Criminal Complaint No.2441 of 2010 under Section 12/18 of the Act in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh against her father. From the facts as narrated, the petitioner with his wife has four daughters and two sons and their details are given as under:—

3. The two daughters after their education and marriage are living separately. Respondent No.1 is the youngest daughter of the petitioner. She had completed post graduation in the year 2003 from M.D.P.G. College, Pratapgarh while living with the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent No.1 wanted to do private service to which the family members objected and wanted her to get married and settle in her life. However, respondent No.1 was adamant to live life on her own terms and, therefore, she left the parental house willingly in the year 2005 and started living with the eldest daughter of the petitioner and also doing private service in H.N. Homeohall. It is further alleged that all efforts to bring her back and get her married failed and she did not listen to the advice of her parents or her family members. Five years from the date since she left the parents’ residence, she filed an application in the year 2010 under Section 12/18 of the Act, alleging domestic violence in the nature that the petitioner was not discharging his parental duty by not meeting out her expenses and not arranging her marriage.

4. Respondent No.1 claimed monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month and Rs.10,00,000/- for marriage and share in the residential house of the petitioner.

5. On notice, the petitioner filed objection to the aforesaid application on 26.07.2010 questioning the maintainability of the application besides denying the allegations levelled by respondent No.1. It was also disclosed that in respect of the shop, a civil dispute was pending between the shareholders in the Court of Additional Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Pratapgarh, while the house situated in Mohalla Sahoderpur was mortgaged with the State Bank of India. It was further said that respondent No.1 had willingly left the house of the petitioner and in fact she had brought disrepute to the entire family despite the fact that the entire family had taken due care, and given love and affection to her.

6. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh vide order dated 18.08.2011 placing reliance on the report of the District Probation Officer had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.4,000/- in the Bank account of respondent No.1 every month towards maintenance and make fix deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- in the name of respondent No.1 within a period of three months. It was further directed that the petitioner should not make any interference in the matter of respondent No.1 and to provide her accommodation of one room with wash room, kitchen. The petitioner had been restrained to enter the room of respondent No.1 without her permission.

7. Learned Magistrate considering the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act rejected the objection regarding t