KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA,J. - (1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur Metro, whereby monetary compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent wife under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, be set aside along with the order passed by the appellate Court below whereby the order of maintenance was affirmed.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent in the month of June, 1985 as per the Hindu rites and customs, therefore, the wife is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act'). It is urged that the Act will not apply retrospectively.
(3.) The counsel for the respondent/aggrieved wife has relied upon V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 183, wherein the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner were considered and rejected. It will be apposite to reproduce paras 7, 8 and 12 of the V.D. Bhanot's judgment supra as under: 7. Before the Delhi High Court, the only question which come up for determination was whether the petition under the provisions of the PWD Act, 2005, was maintainable by a woman, who was no longer residing with her husband or who was allegedly subjected to any act of domestic violence prior to the coming into force of the PWD Act on 26.10.2006. 8. After considering the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 of the Constitution vis-a-vis the provisions of Sections 31 and 33 of the PWD Act, 2005 and after examining the statement of objects and reasons for the enactment of the PWD Act, 2005, the learned Judge field that it was with the view of protecting the rights of women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution that Parliament enacted the PWD Act, 2005, in order to provide for some effective protection of rights guaranteed under the Constitution to women, who are victims of any kind of violence occurring within the family and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto, and to provide an efficient and expeditious civil remedy to them. The learned Judge accordingly held that a petition under the provisions of PWD Act, 2005, is maintainable even if the acts of domestic violence had been committed prior to the coming into force of the said Act, notwithstanding the fact that in the past she had lived together with her husband in a shared household but was no more living with him, at the time when the Act came into force. 12. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court that in looking into a complaint under Section 12 of the PWD Act, 2005, the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the PWD Act, could be taken into consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. In our view, the Delhi High Court has also rightly held that even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the PWD Act, 2005." ;