JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Anil petitioner who is husband of respondent Smt. Sudesh has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 10.7.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and judgment dated 21.3.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 2. Respondent Sudesh instituted application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act) against petitioner Anil and his father Dharam Pal seeking various reliefs, alleging that respondent Sudesh is wife of Anil petitioner and daughter-in-law of Dharam Pal. She went to her parental home on 1.1.1999. On 18.9.1999, a false FIR was lodged from the side of the petitioner against the respondent under sections 380 and 506 IPC but the said FIR was cancelled. Divorce petition filed by petitioner against respondent was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge. The respondent wife tried to live in the shared house with the petitioner and his father but they did not allow her. She also lodged FIR under sections 406 and 498-A IPC against the petitioner and his parents. The petitioner has also performed second marriage for which separate complaint under section 494 IPC was filed. Another complaint was filed under section 500 read with section 109 IPC against the petitioner and his parents. 3. The petitioner and his father in their reply while admitting the relationship between the parties broadly denied other averments of the respondent. However, lodging of various cases was not disputed. Claim of the respondent was controverted. 4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 10.7.2008 held that respondent-wife is entitled to reside in the shared house hold. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to provide accommodation to the respondent in the shared house hold and petitioner and his father were restrained from causing any hindrance in the residence of the respondent herein. Appeal preferred by the petitioner and his father against the said order has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 21.3.2009. Feeling aggrieved, Anil petitioner only has filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Appeal preferred by the petitioner and his father against the said order has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 21.3.2009. Feeling aggrieved, Anil petitioner only has filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent was residing separately at her parental home since 1.1.1999 whereas the Act came into force w.e.f. 26.10.2006 and the Act is not retrospective and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any relief under the Act and the application filed by her is not maintainable. It was also argued that under proviso to section 12(1) of the Act, the Magistrate while deciding application has to take into consideration any domestic incident report received from Protection Officer or Service Provider, but in the instant case, there was no such domestic incident report and there was no incident of domestic violence. 7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. It is correct that the Act is not retrospective. However, the petitioner is seeking relief prospectively and not retrospectively under the Act. Consequently, it cannot be said that application filed by respondent under section 12 of the Act is not maintainable. 8. As regards domestic incident report, the same could be taken into consideration only if any such report had been received. However, it would not mean that if no report of the domestic incident is received by the Magistrate from the Protection Officer or Service Provider, then application under section 12 of the Act would not be maintainable. 9. In the instant case, both the courts below have held the entitlement of the petitioner to reside in the shared house hold which has many rooms as per site plan produced in evidence. Learned Magistrate observed that one room sufficient for residence of the respondent has to be allotted to her by the petitioner which should be reasonably sufficient for her living according to her status and all amenities should be attached with the said room or should be provided by the petitioner. The said relief granted by the Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court cannot be said to be unreasonable in view of evidence led in the case. The said relief granted by the Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court cannot be said to be unreasonable in view of evidence led in the case. There is no infirmity much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned judgments of the courts below so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. 10. The revision petition is devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————