JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.
A notice under Section 9(b) and 37(2)/1c/Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the Act, dated 14.11.2007 has been challenged by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the Act came into force on 26.10.2006, but the incidents on the basis of which the application was moved by the opposite party No. 2 relates to 15.6.2005 and thereafter the complainant is living in her house since 20.9.2005. Learned Counsel for the complainant, however, points out that when the complainant visited the Court premises, she was again assaulted and this incident is I subsequent to coming into force the Act. Without going into this aspect, as the relief sought in this case i.e. for seeking protection from being dispossessed from the premises or for getting compensation, if he wants to dispossess her is an act in presenti. It cannot be said that as some of the incidents referred to an earlier date, proceedings under the Act were not maintainable. Specific powers in this regard have been mentioned in Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. The Second submission raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants was that the application was not in the prescribed Form No. I. I think that is only a directory requirement. Moreover, learned Counsel for the complainant has produced the certified copy of the notice, which is in the Form-I. The third contention raised in the application was that the essence of the Act was only for protect women when she was staying in her (sic) house with her husband and not after she had gone to her maternal home and admittedly in this case she was living in her J maternal home since 20.9.2005. I do not think that in the Act there is are such requirement. The specifically provides under Section 2(f) that "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage etc. Therefore, the requirement of immediate residence is not necessary. Moreover, Section 3 also notes the definition of domestic violence. There is no specification that the applicants had been contacted only at the time when the complainant was residing in the home of her husband or partner. The Fourth submission raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants was that the Magistrate should have called for a report from a Protection Officer before proceeding in the matter. This is apparently what he has done by their order dated 14.11.2007, whereby he has "merely registered the miscellaneous case on the basis of an application and has issued notice to the complainant through the Protection Officer and put up the matter on 21.11.2007. Moreover, as cognizance even has not been taken in this case, I think, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in this count. Learned Counsel for the complainant is right in submitting that the said proceeding was introduced for the salutary purpose of giving protection to women from harassment at the hands of their, husbands and from domestic violence, and to required to be disposed of expeditiously within 60 days. By filing this case the applicants are only trying to seek stalling the disposal of the said proceedings.
3. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicants that on 14.11.2005 when the complainant moved the application, notice should not have been given is not at all acceptable. As the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the notice should not have been issued under Section 9(1)(b) and 37(2)/1c/ of the Act is also unwarranted and because the incidents have been described in Form I. Moreover, simply by not mentioning all the provisions, the application cannot be thrown out and as pointed out above, relevant provisions under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act have also applied to the facts of the case.
4. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this application. It is rejected.