JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice being contrary to the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005'). According to the counsel for the petitioner, as per the definition of "respondent", a female cannot be given notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is a female, she could not have been given notice under the Act of 2005. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that a reply to the notice has already been submitted before the competent court and therein, the objection as has been raised herein in the present petition, has otherwise been taken in the reply also.May be directed to decide the said representation expeditiously, i.e., within a period of one month from the date of submission of the required representation and in view of that the issue so raised in the present writ petition need not to press, but liberty may be given to be petitioner that if ultimately, representation is not decided in favour of the petitioner , then he may approach this Court on the grounds raised herein. 2. Looking to the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, liberty is given to the petitioners to make a representation to the competent authority for the prayer made in this writ petition and in case, such representation is made, the competent authority is expected to decide the same expeditiously and if possible within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The present writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to file fresh writ petition if the representation is decided against them.Petition disposed of. *******