M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 13.11.2013 and 17.5.2013. Vide order dated 17.5.2013, application under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005') was allowed followed by dismissal of the appeal vide order dated 13.11.2013. The petitioner No. 1 has been directed to pay 60% of the amount of his gross salary to the non -petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that an application under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005 was entertained for the incidence prior to the Act of 2005, though it has not been given retrospective effect. The application was not maintainable on the aforesaid ground. He placed reliance on the judgments of this court wherein the Act of 2005 was not found to be retrospective.
(2.) THE other argument is regarding limitation as provided under section 468 Cr.P.C. A reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been given wherein the complaint under section 12 of the Act was not held maintainable, if barred by limitation, thus on the aforesaid ground also, challenge is made. It is lastly contended that the maintenance is highly excessive as 60% of the gross salary has been awarded in favour of the non -petitioner. If, at all, maintenance is payable, it has to be reasonable and determined on lump sum amount and, if not, then on the net salary, instead of gross salary. The impugned order deserves to be quashed even on that count also.
(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for non -petitioner submit that the application under section 12 of the Act of 2005 is maintainable even for an event took place before coming into force the Act of 2005. Reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue has been given.;