JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 4.11.2008 whereby the appellate Court has allowed the maintenance to the respondents and quashed the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate dated 11.10.2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been filed before the Court below and after hearing the parties, the Court below has came to the conclusion that no act of domestic violence has been done by the petitioner after coming into force of the present Act and hence it had no retrospective effect and by holding this, the trial Court had rejected the application. The learned appellate Court has quashed the order of the trial Court and awarded Rs. 4,500/- per month maintenance to the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The only contention of the present petitioner is that the aforesaid Act of 2005 has came in force from 26.10.2006 and the Act is not retrospective. All the allegations regarding domestic violence have been committed before the Act came in force. There is no dispute that the parties are not residing with each other since 29.6.2005 and when they are not residing with each other, no question of domestic violence by the respondents will arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Hema @ Hemlata (Smt.) & Anr. v. Jitender & Anr., 2009 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 291 wherein it has been held that : "In the instant case there is no question of any report of domestic violence as is clear from the facts that the divorce between the parties took place in September 2003 and after coming into force of the provisions of the Act, the parties cannot be termed as aggrieved person. The Special Jude has given cogent reasons for setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate -allowing maintenance to the petitioners. The order by the Special Judge is perfectly legal and not contrary to law." 5. Hence, looking at the above legal position, when the parties are residing separately since 29.6.2005 and since the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the petitioner had not subjected any domestic violence to the respondents and hence the order of the appellate Court is liable to be quashed. 6. Hence, looking at the above legal position, when the parties are residing separately since 29.6.2005 and since the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the petitioner had not subjected any domestic violence to the respondents and hence the order of the appellate Court is liable to be quashed. 6. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned appellate Court is hereby quashed.Revision allowed. *******