- (1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 15-1-2010, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, and by the judgment dated 12-3-2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the petitioner has approached this court. By the former judgment, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the petitioner's application for rejecting the complaint filed by respondent wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short); by the latter judgment, the learned Judge had upheld the judgment dated 15-1-2010.
(2.) This case has a convoluted history, which is as under: The petitioner, Gajendra Singh, and the respondent, Minakshi Yadav, were married on 19-2-2002 according to the Hindu customs and rites. Out of the wedlock a son, Jatin, was born on 21-10-2004. According to Minakshi Yadav, ever since her marriage, the petitioner and his family members constantly demanded a Maruti car and Rs.one lac as dowry. Since her parents could not afford to fulfill the said demand, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. Eventually on 3-5-2004, the petitioner left Minakshi at her parental house. According to her, even after the birth of a son, neither the petitioner, nor his any family member, bothered to care about her. On 8-2-2006, she lodged a FIR against the petitioner and his family members for offences under sections 498-A, and 406 IPC. In order to harass and humiliate her, in order to force her to withdraw the said case, according to Minakshi Yadav, the petitioner and his family members would threatened her over the telephone, and would stop her way, on the way to the court, and would threaten her with regard to the safety of her child. Moreover, unable to lookafter herself, Minakshi had also filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court. This had further prompted the petitioner's family members to pressurise the respondent. Eventually in 2007, she filed an application under section 12 of the Act, along with an application under section 23 of the Act for interim relief. The petitioner filed a detailed reply disputing the averments made in the application. However, vide judgment dated 5-4-2007, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4 Jaipur City, Jaipur passed an interim order and directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.1500/- to Minakshi, and Rs.1000/- to their son, Jatin, along with Rs.500/- as rental amount for alternative residential place. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said judgment, he filed an appeal under section 29 of the Act. However, vide judgment dated 30-4-2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-4-2007, the petitioner filed a revision petition before this Court. The petitioner raised the issue that since the acts complained of relate to the period 2002 to 2004, the application under section 12 of the Act was not maintainable, as the Act itself came into force on 26-10-2006. According to the petitioner, the Act could not be given a retrospective effect. However, vide judgment dated 18-7-2008, this Court also dismissed the revision petition. On 7-1-2009, this Court pronounced its judgment in the case of Hema @ Hemlata & another Vs. Jitendra & another,2009 1 CrLR 291, wherein this Court held that the Act was not retrospective in nature. Relying on the said judgment, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate and prayed that the complaint filed by Minakshi should be dismissed. However, vide judgment dated 15-1-2010, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Subsequently the petitioner again filed an appeal before the learned Judge. However, vide judgment dated 12-3-2010, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Rahul Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that Section 5 of the General Clauses Act clearly states that a Central Act comes into operation on the date on which it receives the assent of the President of India. The Act received the assent on 26-10- 2006; therefore, the Act is prospective in nature, and cannot be given a retrospective effect. He has further contended that the acts of domestic violence complained of by the respondent relate to the period 2002 to 2004. For, admittedly Minakshi has been staying away from the petitioner ever since 2004. Hence, no act of domestic violence was committed after 2004. In such a scenario, the application under section 12 of the Act was not maintainable. Relying on the judgment of Hema @ Hemlata and another (supra), the learned counsel has asserted that the Act could not be given a retrospective effect. He has further relied on the case of Shyam Lal and others Vs. Kanta Bai,2010 2 Crimes 862, a case decided by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein it was held that the Act could not be given a retrospective effect.;