Judgment Heard Mr. R.A. Gupte, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Aditya Satpute h/f Dr. Anjan De, learned Counsel for the non-applicant. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The applicants pray for quashing of the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kelapur filed by the non-applicant under Section 12 and other provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. There are few admitted facts, which can be summed up as under:- Applicant No.1 was married to the non-applicant on 9th June, 2009 at Pandharkawada. After the marriage, the non-applicant came to stay with applicant No.1 and other applicants at Kamptee, Nagpur. It is further admitted that an application for divorce by mutual consent was filed in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharkawada on 27th April, 2010. Thereafter an agreement was entered into by applicant No.1 and the non-applicant under which applicant No.1 agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-to the non-applicant. It is admitted that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-had already been paid to the non-applicant by applicant No.1. It is further not disputed that on 30th April, 2010 non-applicant unilaterally approached the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharkawada and filed a pursis under which she had withdrawn her consent for divorce. The learned Judge admittedly granted the pursis and directed that the consent of the non-applicant stood withdrawn. As such the proceedings for divorce, by mutual consent, came to an end on 30th April, 2010 due to the pursis filed by the non-applicant. 4. Applicant No.1 had filed a divorce petition on 12-11-2010 at Nagpur in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. The notice was issued to the non-applicant by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. It is not admitted that the notice was received by the non-applicant. However, it is admitted that the exparte decree has been passed in favour of the applicant directing the dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The said decree is dated 30th April, 2011. 5. In the proceedings, which are sought to be quashed by the applicants, the non-applicant had alleged that she had suffered domestic violence at the hands of applicants on various occasions after her marriage. The said decree is dated 30th April, 2011. 5. In the proceedings, which are sought to be quashed by the applicants, the non-applicant had alleged that she had suffered domestic violence at the hands of applicants on various occasions after her marriage. It is alleged that at least on two occasions her parents were required to intervene and visit her matrimonial home to pacify the situation created by the applicant. 6. I have gone through the whole text of the application filed by the non-applicant vide Criminal Application No.16/2010 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kelapur under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. It is noticed that most of the allegations are general in nature. Few specific incidents have been stated in 5 pages of the complaint, which normally could be 9 to 10 pages. In such a lengthy application, there are two specific incidents, one is involving her father-in-law (applicant No.2 herein). Her father-in-law was allegedly peeping from the ventilator when she was taking bath. What is further alleged that mother-in-law (applicant No.3 herein) was also watching her husband when he was peeping from the Ventilator. The non-applicant has alleged that she immediately dressed herself and came out of the bathroom and complained to applicant No.3. Applicant No.3 ignored it and took favour of applicant No.2. It is alleged that all the family members were in this manner unitedly torturing the non-applicant. The another incident is involving applicant No.1. It is alleged that applicant No.1 did not maintain his promise to attend one marriage with the non-applicant on a particular date at 4.30 p.m. The allegations made in the application are general in nature and can be made without any basis by anybody. The allegations made in the application are to be examined in the background of what has been stated earlier hereinabove with regard to the joint petition for divorce and the steps taken by the non-applicant to sabotage the proceedings before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pandharkawada. On examining the behaviour of the non-applicant on the basis of admitted facts, it will be clear that the non-applicant herself appears to be dishonest inasmuch as she has tried to deceive applicant No.1 on each and every stage. On examining the behaviour of the non-applicant on the basis of admitted facts, it will be clear that the non-applicant herself appears to be dishonest inasmuch as she has tried to deceive applicant No.1 on each and every stage. It is worth mentioning here that she had taken Rs.2,00,000/-under an agreement and thereafter she had filed a pursis for withdrawal of her consent to the joint petition for dissolution of marriage. It is also necessary to be noted here that the non-applicant did not appear before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur though she was served. The learned Counsel for the non-applicant states that she had moved the concerned Court for setting aside the exparte decree. It is submitted that she was, in fact, not served and decree has been obtained by misrepresentation to the Court. The plea taken by the non-applicant will be heard in due course. However, at present finding is on record that the non-applicant had treated the applicant No.1 with cruelty and has deserted applicant No.1. 7. Considering the conduct of the non-applicant and particularly acceptance of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-at the time of agreement clearly indicates that she is not willing to stay with applicant No.1. It appears that she is intentionally trying to create some or other problem for the family of the applicants. It is admitted position that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-has not been returned to applicant No.1 by the non-applicant. If the non-applicant was honest and really wanted to pursue her cause, the first thing she could have done was to return the amount of Rs.2,00,000/to applicant No.1. 8. Considering the factual position and vague nature of allegations made in application, in my opinion, the complaint cannot be continued further. It is gross abuse of process of law and needs to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following order. The proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kelapur vide Criminal Case No.16/2010 under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, filed by the non-applicant against the applicant, shall stand quashed. The application is disposed of accordingly.