ORDER

[Delivered on this 24^th day of April, 2021] With consent, heard finally.

The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. preferred at the instance of petitioners (husband and mother-in-law respectively), whereby they are seeking quashment of domestic violence proceedings filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity “Act, 2005”) vide Complaint Case No.823/2018 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 got married to respondent No.1 on 10-03-2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Gwalior. Later on, marriage was registered at Jaipur Nagar Nigam (Rajasthan) and they lived as couple for a year and as per the allegations, on 17-03-2017 respondent No.1/wife left her matrimonial home for her parental home at Gwalior. At that point of time, she conceived a baby and, therefore, on 4-11-2017 delivered a baby boy (respondent No.2 herein). Since couple shared domestic incompatibility and dispute, therefore, series of litigations started between the two. Petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was preferred at the instance of husband (petitioner No.1 herein) and proceedings under Section 498-A, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC as well as under the Act, 2005 were initiated at the instance of respondent No.1 alongwith other proceedings.

3. In the case under consideration, respondent No.1 filed complaint against the petitioners under Section 12 of Act, 2005 at JMFC, Gwalior and it appears that cognizance has been taken by the Trial Court. Therefore, petitioner has preferred this petition for quashment.

4. Petitioners raised two grounds:-

A. Petition is barred by time and suffers from limitation because as per Section 31 of the Act, 2005, maximum punishment can be given one year, therefore, complaint could have been filed within one year only, as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case she left her matrimonial home on 17-03-2017 and filed the case on 22-06-2018, therefore, it is barred by time.

B. Petitioner No.2 is mother of petitioner No.1 and is female, therefore, she cannot be arrayed as respondent as per Section 2(q) of Act, 2005.

5. For ground No.A, counsel for petitioners refers the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Shekhar Mohanti, (2007) 7 SCC 394 and Noida Entrepreneur Association Vs. Noida, (2007) 10 SCC 385 and Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 588.

6. For ground No.B, petitioners referred the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ajay Kant and Others Vs. Smt. Alka Sharma, (2007) 4 MPHT 62 = 2008 CRLJ 264.

7. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer.

According to him cause of action is recurring in nature and therefore, limitation of one year is not applicable. He relied upon the case of Krishna Bhattacharjee Vs. Sarathy Choudhary and Anr., (2016) 2 SCC 705 in support of his submission.

8. So far as impleadment of petitioner No.2 as female member is concerned, it is the submission of counsel for the respondent that female member can be arrayed as respondent as per the mandate of Apex Court in the case of Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors., 2011 AIR SCW 1327 and prayed for dismissal of petitioner.

9. Heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.

10. It is a case, where petitioners are husband and mother-in-law respectively and facing proceedings under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. The ground raised by the petitioners if are considered on the anvil of statute and legal guidance, then it appears that case of the petitioners sans merit.

11. So far as ground No.A regarding limitation is concerned, from the facts, it appears that she left her matrimonial home on 17- 03-2017 and thereafter, as per