GAJENDRA SINGH Vs. MINAKSHI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 15-1-2010, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, and by the judgment dated 12-3-2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the petitioner has approached this court. By the former judgment, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the petitioner's application for rejecting the complaint filed by respondent wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short); by the latter judgment, the learned Judge had upheld the judgment dated 15-1-2010.

(2.) This case has a convoluted history, which is as under:

(3.) Mr. Rahul Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that Section 5 of the General Clauses Act clearly states that a Central Act comes into operation on the date on which it receives the assent of the President of India. The Act received the assent on 26-10- 2006; therefore, the Act is prospective in nature, and cannot be given a retrospective effect. He has further contended that the acts of domestic violence complained of by the respondent relate to the period 2002 to 2004. For, admittedly Minakshi has been staying away from the petitioner ever since 2004. Hence, no act of domestic violence was committed after 2004. In such a scenario, the application under section 12 of the Act was not maintainable. Relying on the judgment of Hema @ Hemlata and another (supra), the learned counsel has asserted that the Act could not be given a retrospective effect. He has further relied on the case of Shyam Lal and others Vs. Kanta Bai,2010 2 Crimes 862, a case decided by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein it was held that the Act could not be given a retrospective effect.