SSK/915 1 apl 1264.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1264 OF 2011 Arun Baban Sawant & Anr. ....Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Rajendra Sorankar, advocate for the applicants. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 14th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Sorankar, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. The applicants by this criminal application pray for quashing and setting-aside proceedings of the Criminal Case No.174/N/2008 and order passed thereon by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 30th September, 2008. The said application was filed by respondent no.2-wife under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protections of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. By order dated 30th September, 2008, a notice was issued to respondent nos. 1 & 2 therein i.e. the present applicants. Mr. Sorankar, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the applicants were also charged under Section 498 A of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of respondent no.2-wife and they have been acquitted. He secondly submitted that the decree of divorce was already passed by the Family Court, and therefore, this proceedings are not maintainable. So far as the applicants' acquittal SSK/915 2 apl 1264.11 under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. is concerned, in my view, the same will not come in way of respondent no.2 to seek relief under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 especially when respondent no.2 has sought relief under Section 18 for protection order, under Section 19 for residence order and under Section 20 for monetary relief. So far as divorce decree is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant admitted that respondent no.2 has filed first appeal before this Court challenging the divorce and this Court has stayed the divorce decree. Thus, the relation between the parties continues. Both the points urged by learned counsel for the applicant are without merit. 3. Learned counsel also submits that the complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is barred by limitation. He relies upon the provision of Section 28 of the said Act as well as the provision of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.. The argument is misconceived. The said Act does not prescribe any limitation for a relief under Sections 18, 19 and 20. The applicants are always at liberty to oppose respondent no.2-wife's application on merits. Taking overall facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, I do not find any merit in the application. The criminal application is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)