The Family Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain applications under S.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; such applications must be filed before a Magistrate.

1. By this appeal under S.19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , appellant Smt. Neetu Singh has questioned legality and correctness of the order dated 15-6-2006 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur on an application filed by the appellant under S.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2005') whereby learned Judge, Family Court held that since application has been filed under S.12 of the Act, 2005, which ought to have been filed before the Magistrate and the relief sought for falls under the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, therefore, it be returned to the appellant for filing the same before the competent Court having jurisdiction.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant herein filed an application under S.12 of the Act, 2005 read with S.7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur on 13-6-2006 with the averments that the appellant was married to respondent on 28-4-2003 as per the Hindu custom. Just after the marriage, her in - laws started treating her with inhuman, cruel and neglect behaviour. In connection with demand of money in - laws started beating the appellant and she was thrown out of the matrimonial house, against which reports were lodged in the Police Station on 7-8-2003 and 16-9-2004. On 9-11-2004, the appellant sent a notice to the respondent reminding him about his matrimonial duties, thereafter the appellant filed an application under S.125 of the Cr. P. C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, from where same has been transferred to the Family Court, Bilaspur. The Family Court vide its order dated 20th April, 2005 passed an order for interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1500/- per month. Her husband is earning about Rs. 20,000/- per month. The in - laws have refused to return her articles which were given to her by her parents in her marriage. On the contrary, they have levelled false allegation of character assassination against the appellant, complaint of which was made by her in the Police Station. Ultimately, the appellant demanded Rs. 2 lakhs which were spent by her parents on arrangement of the marriage i.e. on tent, shamiyana and food, an amount of Rs. 1,56,792, value of articles, which were given to her in the dowry and Rs. 1 lakh for subjecting her to cruelty and character assassination. On 15-6-2006, the learned Judge, Family Court, in the presence of the appellant, passed the impugned order.

3. We have heard Shri Rahul Birtharey and Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, counsel for the appellant and Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant inviting attention of the Court towards the provisions of S.26 of the Act, 2005, argued that the Family Court is competent to entertain the said application as per the provisions of S.26 of the Act, 2005, therefore, order impugned suffers from illegality.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy, in our opinion, it would be beneficial to have a glance on the relevant provisions of the Act, 2005. S.12 of the Act, 2005, envisages that :
"12. Application to Magistrate. - (1) 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 this Act :
Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may inc