IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 865 of 2008 Manoj Dhawan S/o Sri K.K. Dhawan R/o House No. 68, Arjun Marg, D .L.F. Phase –I, Gurgaon (Haryana). ...…………. Petitioner Versus Smt. Poonam Dhawan W/o Sri Manoj Dhawan D/o S.K. Sood R/o 11 / 4, Chukhuwala, Near Guru Nanak Boys Inter College, P.S. Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun. ...…………. Respondent Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. Tumul Nailwal, Advocate, present for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has challenged the proceedings drawn by the respondent under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2 3) The ground on which this petition is filed is that the petitioner has deserted the respondent two months after her marriage with him, and since 2004, she is living away from him at Dehradun. A petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the petitioner before Gurgaon court. As a counterblast to it, the respondent got registered Crime No. 189 of 2007, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A case for maintenance was also filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Both these proceedings are not under challenge before this court). Now, the respondent has filed complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is pleaded in the petition that there is no cause of action to the respondent to file petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is also stated that the Act has no retrospective effect. 4) These pleas which are raised before this court can be raised by the petitioner before the trial court where the proceedings are pending since July 2007, and any order passed by the Magistrate is appellable under Section 29 of said Act. The factual disputes are raised in the petition, which can be examined by the trial court, and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he has a remedy to challenge the same before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, under the provision mentioned above. 3 5) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Interim order dated 17.09.2009, passed by this court, stands vacated. (Stay Vacation Application No. 458 of 2010 and Stay Vacation Application No. 601 of 2011 stand disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 13, 2011. H. Negi 4