JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge whereby the respondents have been discharged from the liability under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 12 of the Act stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with Satish Sharma on 10.4.2008. Thereafter, the respondents Nos. 1 to 5, who are relatives of her husband, i.e. mother-in-law, brother-in-law sister-in-law and others started taunting her that she is disabled and demanded dowry and hence the petition under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the present petitioner. The respondents have not replied to the main petition and filed an application that the proceedings should be dropped against them as the allegations are only omnibus. The learned trial Court ordered that the contentions of the rival parties will be taken care of on final disposal of the case. But the learned appellate Court stated. that there is no specific allegation against the respondents; no dates have been mentioned, no injury report has been produced and ordered that the proceedings be dropped against the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. Perused the relevant record. 4. The contention of the present petitioner is that there are specific allegations against the respondents. The respondents and the present petitioner are living in the same house and the respondents used to torture the present petitioner. She prayed for protection order and complaint is maintainable against the husband's male and female relatives and reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Kaniz Fatima v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2011(3) WLC (Raj.) 392. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondents are the relatives of the husband of the petitioner. There are allegations against the respondents. The proceedings before the trial Court are still at early stage and the respondents even ha, . e not filed their reply. The trial Court has rightly considered the fact that looking to the allegations contained in the complaint, the proceedings are maintainable against the respondents and the contentions of the respondents can be considered at the time of hearing of the petition. e not filed their reply. The trial Court has rightly considered the fact that looking to the allegations contained in the complaint, the proceedings are maintainable against the respondents and the contentions of the respondents can be considered at the time of hearing of the petition. The appellate Court has dealt with the complaint in very casual manner and without considering the merits of the case, on the pretext that dates have not been mentioned or injury report has not been produced and dropped the proceedings abruptly without complying with the procedure provided under the Act. Hence, the order of the appellate Court is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Looking at the above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the appellate Court is quashed and set aside. The trial Court may proceed with the proceedings according to the procedure prescribed under the Act and the respondents are free to raise their objections by filing written reply.Revision allowed. *******