[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1689/2007 PRAHLAD KHATIK Vs. SHARDA Date: 13.02.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE None present for the petitioner. Mr. Deshraj for Mr. Ashvin Garg for the respondent. **** Brief facts of the case are that an application under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005') was filed by the non- petitioner Sharda in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Dudu, District Jaipur stating therein that she is residing in Gram Mandawari, Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur as she was married to the petitioner and her sister Neetu married with the brother of the petitioner on 05.02.95 as per Hindu rites in Gram Mandawari, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. It was also submitted in the complaint that her father gave dowry in the marriage out of which jewelry and some articles are still in possession of the petitioner. It was also stated that 'Gona' [2] ceremony was conducted on 04.05.2004 and after 'Gona' she started living in matrimonial home. It was alleged that the petitioner and her family members used to maltreat the respondent and did not provide any medical aid in her illness. Further it was alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the respondent and sold out the land which was in her name. Ultimately, the respondent wife left her matrimonial home and started living with her father and filed an application under the provisions of the Act of 2005. The petitioner aggrieved by the complaint submitted by the respondent wife under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, has preferred the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for seeking quashment of application No. 21/2007 filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Dudu, District Jaipur on the ground that the Act of 2005 was came into force w.e.f. 26.10.2006, whereas the respondent is living separately since before the date of commencement of the Act of 2005. Having considered the averments made in the misc. petition, having heard learned counsel for the respondent and upon careful perusal of the application [3] filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, it is no doubt that on the application submitted by the respondent wife, the Court concerned only issued notice to call upon the petitioner and the petitioner has every right to raise just and legal objections before the Court concerned regarding applicability of the Act of 2005 and without availing the opportunity to raise the submissions before the Court concerned, the petitioner has filed the present criminal misc. petition for quashing the application filed by the respondent wife under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. In the considered view of this Court, the present misc. petition is premature and misconceived. No interference whatsoever is required by this Court at this stage. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/ [4] S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. STAY APPLN. NO. 241/2007 IN S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1689/2007 PRAHLAD KHATIK Vs. SHARDA Date: 13.02.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE None present for the petitioner. Mr. Deshraj for Mr. Ashvin Garg for the respondent. **** As the misc. petition has been dismissed today, the stay application also stands dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/