JUDGMENT P.S.Datta 1. HEARD Ms. Ajeya Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. 2. THE order dated 7.2.2009 passed by the learned, Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Alipore in case No. C 8046 of 2008 is under challenge. The opposite, party No.2 herein made an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short the Act) before the learned Magistrate praying for reliefs under Sections 18,19,19(d), 20, 21 and 22 of the said Act. The application was filed against four persons who are the petitioners herein. The learned Magistrate issued summons upon the four petitioners directing them to appear in person which they complied with and made an application before the learned Magistrate raising maintainability of the proceeding on a number of grounds. It was first contended before the learned Magistrate that the Rule -6 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (in short the Rules) provides that every application of the aggrieved person under Section 12 shall be in Form II or as nearly as possible thereto. The petitioner before the learned Magistrate did not make any .application in Form II and also Form III as are prescribed in the Rules and the necessary information as have been sought for through the aforesaid Forms, were not given. When the statute prescribes a form for making an application to be supported by an affidavit in terms of Form II, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to comply with the Rules. 3. THE second contention was that the Act does not enjoin that women can be categorized within the ambit of the terms "aggrieved person" or "respondent" and the learned Magistrate committed illegality in issuing process upon two women out of the four petitioners herein. 4. THE third contention was that affidavit required in Form III which has to accompany the application was not made. Fourthly, it was contended that pursuant to Rule 11(1) of the Rules, 2006, the Magistrate has to issue notice in Form No. VII which provides a direction upon the notice to appear personally or through a duly authorized counsel of the Court but the learned Magistrate did not mention in the notice that the notice is permitted to appear through pleader but directed their appearance in person which was contrary to the law and this cause immense hardship to the petitioners. 5. 5. LEARNED Magistrate observed in the order impugned that the application has to be made as far as possible according to the Form and it is not mandatory that application was ought to be made in the form prescribed. LEARNED Magistrate further observed at paragraph 3 of the order that domestic incidence report was not a must before the Court proceeds to pass any order. 6. MS Ajeya Mitra canvasses all the points as above before this court and Mr. Joy Sengupta appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has made his submission. Ms. Mitra submits that because of not following the requisite Forum II and III information sought for through Forum II are distinctly absent in the application and in absence of the information, it is the petitioners herein who have been prejudiced. For example, the history of previous litigation has not been mentioned but in fact, there is history of litigation as the wife has filed a petition of complaint under Section 498A of IPC and the husband has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and this information have been suppressed in the application under Section 12 of the Act which has made in narrative way. 7. SMT. Mitra further submits that the learned trial court committed grave error in asking for personal appearance of the petitioners which, in fact is not warranted in law. 8. THIRDLY, it is submitted that affidavits required in Form II with reference to prayer under Section 23(2) of the Act has not been appended. Smt. Mitra submits that it was never her contention before the learned Magistrate that application has to be supported by a domestic incidence report. Mr. Sengupta learned advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that no doubt, it is true that the Rules prescribed certain forms which shall be used but law does not mandate that if any application is made in a narrative way and not strictly in terms of the forms, the said application would visit with rejection. It is submitted that it is a welfare legislation would visit with rejection. It is submitted that it is a welfare legislation would visit with rejection. It is submitted that it is a welfare legislation meant for protection of women from domestic violence and it is intended to comply with provisions of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India and in that view of the matter, it is hot at all desirable that justice should be defeated by technicalities. My attention has been drawn to a decision of Allahabad High Court in Milan Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.1 Mr. Sengupta further draws my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Captain Ramesh Chander v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors.2 wherein Their Lordships of the Supreme Court at paragraph 9 of the judgment observed as follows: "9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the Constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance the cause of the derelicts". 9. HAVING heard the learned advocate for the parties, it appears to me that since the Act is designed to protect women from domestic violence, the Legislature in their wisdom prescribed certain forms in which an application under Section 12 is to be made. The intention of prescribing a form is to assist a woman afflicted by domestic violence so that she may not find any difficulty to make an application through filling up of such form which would be easy without the assistance of a legal expert. Rule 6 of the Rules has itself said that the application of the aggrieved person under Section 12 shall have to be made in Form II or as nearly as possible. The expression as nearly as possible' makes it absolutely clear that no application cannot be made except in the manner as prescribed in the Form No. II. It 1. 2007 Cr. LJ 4742. 2. 1978 SCC (Cri.) 508. The expression as nearly as possible' makes it absolutely clear that no application cannot be made except in the manner as prescribed in the Form No. II. It 1. 2007 Cr. LJ 4742. 2. 1978 SCC (Cri.) 508. cannot be the intention of the Legislature that compliance with Form II or Form III is mandatory. What the Legislature intends is to give information to the learned Magistrate as are necessary in the aid of her application under Section 12 of the Act. Any other interpretation in this respect will be to defeat the justice. In a word, compliance with the Form II or III is merely a directory not mandatory .This interpretation appears to be in consonance with what has been given by a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in the decision cited by Mr. Sengupta. If, however, some information are wanting in the narrative way which are required for the Magistrate to appreciate an application under Section 12 of the Act, then a supplementary affidavit will serve the purpose. It is true that enclosing a domestic incidence report is not a must when an aggrieved person makes an application under Section 12 of the Act. It may be that the learned Magistrate has misunderstood the learned Advocate appearing before him. 10. AS to non-submission of affidavit in Form III, it has to be said that affidavit has been appended to the application but it may be that the affidavit did not contain the all information as per Form III. If the learned Magistrate so desires and permits the petitioner, another affidavit may be sworn in pursuant to the prayer under Section 23(2) of the Act. Undoubtedly, the learned Magistrate has committed illegality in asking the petitioners to appear in person. Form VII clearly provides that the learned Magistrate may direct that the respondents may appear either personally or through a duly authorized Counsel. Therefore, since the application under Section 12 of the Act is meant for certain reliefs under Sections 18,19,20,21,22 and 23, it is not necessary that the "respondent" has invariably to appear in person. Of course, the Magistrate has judicial discretion to direct appearance of a respondent in person provided such appearance is found necessary for adjudication of the dispute. But the matter of the fact is that the Section 12 of the Act does not relate to any offence punishable under the IPC. Of course, the Magistrate has judicial discretion to direct appearance of a respondent in person provided such appearance is found necessary for adjudication of the dispute. But the matter of the fact is that the Section 12 of the Act does not relate to any offence punishable under the IPC. Therefore, personal appearance of a respondent is not a must. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners because of such direction the petitioners had to appear in person and to make an application under Section 205 of Criminal Procedure Code. I must observe that any such application under Section 205 of CrPC is not necessary., If any pleader has been engaged by the petitioners in the learned Trial Court representation by the pleader will suffice and personal appearance of the petitioners is not necessary unless the Magistrate finds it expedient at any certain occasion. 11. THE last submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that the two females out of four petitioners must not have been summoned under Section 12 of the Act because they do not come within the category of the respondent. Learned Advocate for the opposite party No.2 puts an interpretation of the word "respondent" in his own way. But I do not want to make any observation on this point at this stage. This point remains open to be agitated before the learned Magistrate particularly; when there has been appearance of all the petitioners already before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate will be free to decide the point in consideration of the merit of the application under Section 12 of the Act. 12. SUBJECT to the above observation, application is disposed of. Criminal section is directed to supply certified copy of this order, if applied, for to the learned Advocates for the parties expeditiously. Petition dismissed. RAHUL