ORDER 1. A short point involved in this case is whether with respect to complaint dated 06th of June, 2006, cognizance could have been taken by the Court of JMFC in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which came into force w.e.f. 26th of October, 2006. 2. According to the petitioner, he moved an application before the JMFC to dismiss the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction, however, the said application was dismissed by the JMFC Court vide order dated 14.10.2009. 3. According to the trial Court, the issue of jurisdiction could not have been decided before recording of evidence. The petitioner then approached the Court of Sessions and the Sessions Court confirmed the order of JMFC Court. 4. 3. According to the trial Court, the issue of jurisdiction could not have been decided before recording of evidence. The petitioner then approached the Court of Sessions and the Sessions Court confirmed the order of JMFC Court. 4. In this matter, the Sessions Court has also taken note of the fact that the complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was filed by the complainant only on 06th of June, 2006 which is as follows: ^^vukosfndk us viuh f’kdk;r esa O;Dr fd;k gS fd fnukad 6-6-2006 dks og viuh iq=h g”kkZ dks ysdj fuxjkuhdrkZ ds lkFk mlds xkao mlds ekek ds lkFk jgus ds fy, xbZ vkSj ,d lIrkg rd jgh fdarq ekjihV o xkyh xqIrk dk O;ogkj gksus ds dkj.k fuxjkuhdrkZ us mlls dgk fd mldh eka mls j[kus dks rS;kj ugha gS vkSj og mls bankSj esa edku fdjk;s ij ysdj j[ksxk rRi’pkr~ fuxjkuhdrkZ us iq=h dk ,Meh’ku bankSj ds Ldwy esa djok fn;k vkSj vukosfndk ;g viuh iq=h ds lkFk fuxjkuhdrkZ dh cgu ds lkFk bankSj esa jgus yxh vkSj ifr lIrkg ds var esa mlds ikl vkdj jgrk Fkk rRi’pkr~ mu yksxksa us ,d dejk Hkh oh.kkuxj bankSj esa fdjk;s ij ys fy;k tgka og viuh iq=h ds lkFk jgdj mls Ldwy esa i<+k jgh Fkh vkSj fuxjkuhdrkZ lIrkgkar ogka vkrk Fkk vkSj ogka Hkh og mlds lkFk dzwjrk dk O;ogkj djrk FkkA bl izdkj vukosfndk us fuxjkuhdrkZ ij dzwjrk djus dk vk{ksi yxk;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; fnukad 10-10-95 ds i’pkr fookg foPNsn] nkaiR; laca/kksa dh iquZLFkkiuk vkSj Hkj.kiks”k.k laca/kh dk;Zokfg;kWa izkjaHk gqbZ tSlk fd vfHkys[k ls Li”V gS vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa izFken`f”V esa ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd vukosfndk ;g fuxjkuhdrkZ ds lkFk jgh gks fdarq dsoy vuqeku ds vk/kkj ij vukosfndk dk vkosnu fujLr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ftl izdkj ds rF; vkosnu esa foLr`r :i ls fy[ks x;s gSa muds ns[krs gq;s] vuqeku ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k fujLr ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj mldh tkap dh vko’;drk gS tSlk fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh Bgjk;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa esjs er esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fuxjkuhdrkZ ds vkosnu dks fujLr djus esa dksbZ Hkwy ugha dh gSA QyLo:i fuxjkuh esa dksbZ cy u gksus ls mls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns’k dh izfrfyfi ds lkFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k okil Hkstk tk,A** 5. As such, it is submitted that in so far as the allegation of cruelty is concerned, they are already a subject matter of proceeding under section 125 of CrPC whereas the fresh application made with respect of allegation dated 06th of June 2006, the Court of JMFC have not taken cognizance since those allegations are prior to the Act. They also relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the matter of Shyamlal S/o. Jagannath and another v. Kantabai D/o. Badrilal dated 29th of April, 2009 passed in MCrC No. 3876/2008. In the said judgment, it has been observed that : “So far as MCrC no. 3876/2008 is concerned since the respondent is living separately prior to coming into force of the Domestic Violence Act, which came in force with effect from 26.10.2006 and the same is not having the retrospective effect, is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.4.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1087/2007 and the order dated 17.10.2007 passed by JMFC in Cri. Case No. 61/2007 and complaint filed by respondents stands quashed.” 6. Another judgment also relied upon by the petitioner is the judgment delivered in the case of Navin S/o. Ramkishore Marmat dated 2.3.2009 passed in MCrC. No. 6741/2008 where also the Court taking note of the submission of the petitioner regarding the allegations made prior to coming into force of the Act, made following observations : “After going through the complaint, it cannot be said that the offence was continuing even after 6/6/2006. If that would have been the position, then, there was no need to mention that the offence was between 12.11.2005 to 6.6.2006. In view of this, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.9.2008 passed by learned JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No. 2/2008 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for quashment of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 9 and 37 of the Act, 2005 and the criminal proceeding pending before the learned trial Court stands dropped.” 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon the judgment delivered by Gauhati High Court in rebuttal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon the judgment delivered by Gauhati High Court in rebuttal. In the case of Bulu Das (Smt.) v. Ratan Das reported in [2009 Femi-juris C.C. 942 (Gau.)], it has been observed that : “Taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Vanka Radhamanohari case (supra) and Deokaran Nenshi, case (supra), this Court is of the considered view that there is a continuing cause of action for filing the said case i.e. No. 81-M/2006 before the learned SDJM, Dibrugarh, by the present petitioner-wife. Admittedly, the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 came into force on 26.10.2006 vide S.O. 1776 (E), dated 17.10.2006. Since, there is continuing cause of action for the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the firm view that the provisions of the said Act, 2005 are attracted to the present case; and accordingly, the petitioner-wife filed the said case i.e. Misc. Case No. 81M/2006 under the Act, 2005.” 8. However, in the present case, the allegations are very specific i.e. the allegation of cruelty caused upon the respondent/complainant on 06th June, 2006. Such allegation cannot be taken as continuing for the purpose of confirming the jurisdiction to the Court. 9. Consequently, present petition is allowed and the order passed by the Sessions Judge and the Court of JMFC directing continuing further proceedings of complaint filed by the respondent are set aside and it is ordered that the complaint by the respondent on the ground of allegation made regarding her going to matrimonial home of the petitioner on 06th June, 2006 are quashed on the ground of jurisdiction.