SSK/919 1 apl 1214.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1214 OF 2011 Mohit Deepak Gandhi ....Applicant Versus Nidhi Mohit Gandhi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Prasad Pathare i/b. Mr. R. D. Bindra, advocate for the applicant. Mrs. R. V. Pradhan, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. D. P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 28th NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and respondent no.1. 2. The application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging Order dated 11th November, 2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in applicant’s Application dated 10th November, 2011. By the said application, the applicant prayed for dismissal of Domestic Violence Application No.48 of 2010 as against respondent nos. 2 and 3 and in the alternative the applicant prayed for dismissal of the above said application as against the applicant and respondent nos. 2 & 3 on the ground that the aggrieved person - respondent no.1 has not complied with mandatory statutory requirements. SSK/919 2 apl 1214.11 Learned counsel objected maintainability of the complaint on two grounds viz: 1) That the complaint in the absence of verification is not maintainable. 2) The application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “P.W.D.V.Act”) is not maintainable against respondent nos. 2 and 3, inasmuch as they were not sharing household along with the aggrieved person i.e. respondent no.1. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 supported the impugned order. She submitted that the requirement of verification of the complaint is not mandatory. She also submitted that respondent nos. 2 & 3 shared household along with respondent no.1, and therefore, the criminal application deserves to be dismissed. 3. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the domestic violence application is not verified is concerned, I do not find any merit in the said submission. Admittedly, consequences of non- verification of the application are provided under P.W.D.V.Act. Thus, the requirement of verification of the application under Section 12 of the SSK/919 3 apl 1214.11 P.W.D.V. Act is directory. In any case, this defect can be cured at any time. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the said defect would be cured immediately. Permission, in this regard, is granted. 4. The next ground that respondent nos. 2 & 3 are not living in shared household along with respondent no.1 is also without any substance. The allegations are made in the application that respondent no. 1 was staying along with respondent nos. 2 & 3. Even in the present application, the applicant has given his address as that of respondent nos. 2 & 3. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 are none other than the parents of the applicant, and therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, in this regard. 5. In my opinion, learned Magistrate has considered all the facts and submission of the respective counsel in proper perspective. I do not find any error in Order dated 11th November, 2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, so as to enable me to interfere in the aforesaid criminal application in the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The criminal revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)