JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No. 2 (complainant-wife) as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-husband Ajay Arya and his family members being aggrieved by the order dated 25.9.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District-Pali in Criminal Appeal. No. 8/2008 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners preferred against the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Pali in Criminal Regular Case No. 131/2007. Dimple Arya v. Ajay Arya & Ors. granting maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- as interim maintenance in favour of applicant-wife on application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which admittedly was brought into force with effect from 26.10.2006. Learned lower appellate Court below in the impugned order dated 25.9.2008 by same order also allowed cross criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 12/2008 filed by the applicant-wife, seeking enhancement of interim maintenance, and enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 5,000/per month. 3. Being aggrieved by the said orders, impugned, the petitioner-husband and his family members have approached this Court by way of present revision petition. 4. Mr. Sandeep Mehta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that impugned orders are per se illegal and unjustified because the enactment in the form of "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)" (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2005) even though enacted by the Parliament after receiving the assent of President on 13.9.2005, was brought into force only with effect from 26.10.2006 and, therefore, the alleged/so-called cruelty or acts of domestic violence committed by the husband and his members upon the applicant-wife, on the basis of which the applicant-wife claimed the maintenance, were committed prior to said Act of 2005 came into force and since no retrospective effect was given to such Act, in such circumstances, the grant of maintenance under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2005 was illegal and the impugned orders of learned trial Court as well as learned lower appellate Court further enhancing the said amount of interim maintenance to Rs. 5,000/- cannot be sustained. He relied upon a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hema @ Hemlata (Smt.) & Anr. 5,000/- cannot be sustained. He relied upon a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hema @ Hemlata (Smt.) & Anr. v. Jitendra & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 291 in support of his contentions. The operative portion of the decision is reproduced herein below for ready reference : "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the Special Judge (SC and ST Cases) Alwar. Admittedly marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and non-petitioner was dissolved by a consent divorce on 3.9.2003 and thereafter both of them are residing separately. Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 came into force on 17.10.2006 and after enforcement of the Act the petitioners were not residing with the respondent and they were not subjected to any domestic violence by the respondent. There is no provision in the Act having a retrospective effect. Special Judge (SC and ST Cases) Alwar by a detailed order held that there is no question of any violence by the respondent with the petitioner No. 1 after dissolution of marriage and there is no question of petitioners being aggrieved person as defined in Section 2A of the Act. It was specifically mentioned by the Special Judge in the impugned order that on a bare perusal of Section 12(1) of the Act specifically provided that before passing the order as per the provisions of the Act, the Magistrate has to look into the report of domestic violence. 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 Judge has given cogent reasons for setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate allowing maintenance to the petitioners. The order passed by the Special Judge is perfectly legal and not contrary to law. The Special Judge has not committed any illegality in passing the same. Thus the impugned order does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being devoid of merit stands rejected. As the main petition has been dismissed the stay application also stands dismissed." 5. Per contra, the respondent No. 2, Mrs. The Special Judge has not committed any illegality in passing the same. Thus the impugned order does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being devoid of merit stands rejected. As the main petition has been dismissed the stay application also stands dismissed." 5. Per contra, the respondent No. 2, Mrs. Dimple Arya, who appeared in person, submitted that the impugned order is perfectly justified and since the petitioner No. 1, her husband, is living in USA and is well-qualified person, therefore, payment of maintenance to this extent notwithstanding grant of maintenance separately to her under Section 125, Cr.P.C., to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- per month is justified in view of Section 36 of the Domestic Violence Act and the relief granted under the provisions of the Act of 2005 are besides and not in derogation of the said relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the present revision petition, filed by her husband and his family members. 6. It may be stated here that in the present revision petition, this Court made efforts for reconciliation between the parties to put an end to the entire matrimonial dispute looking to the young age of the parties and their qualifications and family background; and the parties had nearly reached a mutual settlement by payment of lump-sum amount of permanently alimony by the petitioner-husband to the respondent-wife against her arrears of maintenance, permanent alimony, value of 'Stridhan', allegedly lying with the petitioner-husband, and withdrawal of litigation between the parties. The respondent-wife Mrs. Dimple Arya, also agreed to the proposal of the petitioners to pay lump-sum of Rs. 11 lacs as also adjustment of Rs. 2 lacs already paid but on account of insistence and reticent attitude of her father, Mr. Ramavtar Gupta, who appeared in the Court on 15.2.2011 and for the difference of a sum of Rupees one lac only, the compromise talks between the parties failed and even though the counsel for the petitioners upon instructions from petitioners agreed to pay increased compensation/permanent alimony of Rs. 11 lacs subject to adjustment of Rs. 2 lacs, already deposited by way of security for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. by this Court, as would appear from the order dated 29.5.2007 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court disposing of the criminal misc. petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. 11 lacs subject to adjustment of Rs. 2 lacs, already deposited by way of security for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. by this Court, as would appear from the order dated 29.5.2007 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court disposing of the criminal misc. petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 157/2007, Ajay Arya & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. which was directed against the order dated 11.1.2007 passed by learned trial Court that the net amount of Rs. 9 lacs would be paid by the petitioners within a period of six weeks, which could be disbursed to the respondent-complainant Mrs. Dimple Arya in the form of fixed deposit, however, the father of the respondent before this Court insisted upon the payment of lump-sum Rs. 13.50 lacs and thus on account of this gap in the settlement amount, the compromise between the parties in the aforesaid manner could not take place, and the respondent-wife could not file revised compromise terms in this Court and thus the compromise failed and, therefore, this revision petition was heard on merits. 7. The marriage between the petitioner No. 1 Ajay Arya and applicant-respondent Mrs. Dimple Arya took place on 11.5.2005 at Jodhpur. However, since the petitioner No. 1 was employed in USA, therefore, soon after the marriage, the visa and other legal formalities for taking the respondent-wife USA could not be arranged; and it appears that soon after the said marriage, the said marriage ran into rough weather and a spate of litigation between the parties started including proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C., Section 13 Divorce Petition filed by the respondent-wife, Section 125, Cr.P.C. maintenance application, Section 12 application under Domestic Violence Act etc.. The alleged incidents of domestic violence in the complaint filed by the respondent-wife are thus admittedly prior to the said Domestic Violence Act, 2005 coming into force with effect from 26.10.2006; and since soon after the marriage, parties started living separately, the grant of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Act of 2005, which was brought into force only with effect from 26.10.2006 after about 11/2 years of the marriage obviously could not be granted since the Act itself had come on the statute book on 13.9.2005 with the President's assent but was not enforceable prior to 26.10.2006. This aspect of the matter appears to have escaped attention of the learned Courts below altogether. The said enactment which is widely worded and gives sweeping powers to grant relief to the females, appears to be frequently misused by the estranged wife(s) -giving rise to consequential litigation's at various forums in the hierarchy of the Courts. It is true that no retrospective effect was intended to be given by the Parliament to the said enactment and, therefore, there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Mehta, Sr. Advocate that for the alleged acts of domestic violence, even though which have not been established in the present case but were allegedly and admittedly prior to 26.10.2006, the grant of maintenance by way of interim maintenance under Section 12 of the said Act and that too enhanced from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 5,000/- by the learned lower appellate Court is beyond the statutory basis in the form of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and unjustified because maintenance awarded under Section 125, Cr.P.C. to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- per month was already being paid to her. 8. Consequently, this revision petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of learned trial Court dated 19.3.2008 granting interim maintenance under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act of Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent-wife as well as order of appellate Court dated 25.9.2008 increasing the same to Rs. 5,000/- per month are set aside. No costs.Revision allowed. *******