PRASHANT PANDIT SALVE Vs. SUVARNA PRASHANT SALVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

(2.) The Petitioners submit that by virtue of the prayers put forth below paragraph 9 of the Petition, they are challenging the proceedings in C.C. No.625/M/2014 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai,and pray for quashing of the proceedings. In the cause title of the Petition, it is indicated that the order dated 8.6.2015 passed below Exhibit 5 in the said proceedings has been subjected to a challenge.

(3.) The Petitioners have put forth two grounds in this Petition. Firstly, that under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, "the D.V. Act"), a complaint may be considered by the Magistrate and an order can be passed on such application only after the Magistrate takes into consideration any report regarding a domestic incident received by him from the Protection Officer or the Service Provider. Section 2(n) of the D.V. Act defines a "Protection Officer" to mean an officer appointed by the State Government under sub -section (1) of Section 8. Section 2(r) defines a "service provider" meaning an entity registered under sub -section (1) of Section 10 of the D.V. Act.