Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. Heard learned appointed counsel for the petitioner and considering the averments made in the present writ petition which is mainly preferred under Section 482 of Cr. P.C it is thought fit that the present matter shall be taken up for orders at the admission stage itself and in order to see whether the matter can be admitted or disposed off at this stage itself without there being any notice to the respondents. 3. The allegations in the present petition are peculiar in nature and mainly there are allegations against the lawyer who represented the petitioner when the petitioner lodged the complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act before the concerned J.M.F.C. Court. The allegations against the said lawyer are to the effect that the lawyer did not produce the correct affidavit giving true and correct factual position as narrated by the petitioner but filed some different facts before the trial Court in the Affidavit to which the petitioner was asked to sign before the Office of the Court. It is also the allegation of the present petitioner that the requisite format which was to be produced before the trial Court in the form of complaint under the Domestic Violence Act contained some other material than that which was given by her to her lawyer. In fact by these allegations the present petitioner wants to come with the case that her initial grievances were not at all produced before the trial Court and also they were not properly established before the first appellate Court and as such, the petitioner did not get the complete relief and specifically did not get any relief against respondent no.1. In order to appreciate this submission, the case as narrated before the trial Court by the petitioner through her lawyer is required to be summarized. 4. In the complaint and also in the Affidavit in lieu of the evidence the complainant/present petitioner had stated that she married with one Diago Fernandes at Vasco and thereafter along with him started residing at Dubai. Two children were born out of the said wedlock in Dubai. Sometime in July 2003 her husband expired. However, she remained in Dubai and also served in some bank and was also promoted and her salary was increased and in Indian currency she was getting monthly salary of Rs.1,75,000/-or so. Two children were born out of the said wedlock in Dubai. Sometime in July 2003 her husband expired. However, she remained in Dubai and also served in some bank and was also promoted and her salary was increased and in Indian currency she was getting monthly salary of Rs.1,75,000/-or so. It is also the allegation of the present petitioner/original complainant that the original respondent no.1 and 2 had allegedly involved in some actions which are covered under the Domestic Violence Act in as much as the respondent no.1, who is the wife of respondent no.2, had sent certain e-mails to the employer of the petitioner/original complainant and also to other relations. In the said e-mails, there were allegations that the petitioner had illicit relations with respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 is the brother of husband of the present petitioner and he had also stayed at Dubai with the family of the petitioner during her stay at Dubai. According to the petitioner, due to such actions of the respondents she lost her job at U.A.E and was compelled to come down to India and stayed at Goa. As such, presently according to the petitioner/original complainant she was devoid of earning and as such, prayed for compensation as against the respondents by way of the present petition also. According to the petitioner, respondent no.2 was in a habit of indulging in such actions as to showing some pornographic material to the young children of the petitioner when she was staying at Dubai with her children and when respondent no.2 was visiting Dubai and staying with her family. 5. The above case was also placed before the trial Court in lieu of the evidence and before the trial Court three more witnesses were examined. Though both the respondents were served they did not contest the proceeding and as such, the matter proceeded and on the strength of the material available and produced by the petitioner, the Judgment and Order was passed by the J.M.F.C., Vasco in Criminal Case No.5/DVA/2012/C. The said Judgment and order was passed on 30/7/2012. The final order reads thus: ORDER “The application under section 12 of the said Act stands partly granted in terms of the relief's claimed under section 18 and 19 of the said Act as against the respondent no.2. The final order reads thus: ORDER “The application under section 12 of the said Act stands partly granted in terms of the relief's claimed under section 18 and 19 of the said Act as against the respondent no.2. Consequently, the respondent no.2 is hereby restrained from committing any acts of domestic violence by way of an injunction against the complainant and her children. Further, the respondent no.2 is also hereby restrained by way of an injunction not to interfere with the residence of the complainant and her children at Chicalim, Vasco Goa. The protection officer is directed to assist the complainant in implementing the order of this Court. The police officer of the concerned police station is also directed to assist the complainant in implementing the order of this Court. Copies of this order to be forwarded to the concerned police station and to the protection officer. Copies of the order to be furnished to both the parties free of cost under Section 24 of the said Act. Pronounced in the open Court. Proceedings closed.” 6. Being aggrieved by the above order, partly allowing the application under section 12 of the D.V. Act and the order not granting any relief to the present petitioner as against respondent no.1 accordingly appeal was preferred being Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2012. The said appeal was also finally heard and disposed off, wherein the respondents appeared and they were represented by a lawyer. So also the present petitioner/original complainant was also represented by Advocate Mr. P. Desai. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 1/3/2013 and what weighed with the Appellate Court was apparently that no domestic relationship between the present petitioner/original complainant and the respondent no.1 so as to attract any penal action against respondent no.1 under the Domestic Violence Act. Now in the third round the matter has come before this Court in writ jurisdiction mainly making allegations against the initial lawyer who had represented the petitioner before the J.M.F.C. 7. This Court has carefully gone through the reasoning given by the J.M.F.C and also by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has carefully discussed the implication of various terms under the Domestic Violence Act such as “aggrieved person”, “domestic relationship” and “shared household”. This Court has carefully gone through the reasoning given by the J.M.F.C and also by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has carefully discussed the implication of various terms under the Domestic Violence Act such as “aggrieved person”, “domestic relationship” and “shared household”. Needless to mention that taking cumulative effect of all these definitions and considering the import of the D.V. Act and mainly considering the allegations against respondent no.1. and respondent no.2 and the contents of the Affidavit filed by the present petitioner therein during the trial, it must be said that the domestic relationship between the present petitioner/complainant and respondent no.1 was not established so as to view the matter differently then what is considered by both he earlier Courts. In other words, the simplicitor allegations against the lawyer who represented the petitioner in the trial Court will not be of any help to the petitioner to come with a prayer of “de novo” trial when initially the petitioner had failed to establish any case against respondent no.1, even at the trail stage and also at the appellate stage. In the opinion of this Court here under writ jurisdiction it is an attempt to cure the lacuna which had earlier crept in during the trial. Now under these circumstances the request on behalf of the petitioner that both the impugned orders to be quashed and to remand the matter for de novo trial before the J.M.F.C is not warranted under the situation. This is mainly for the reason that the complainant/present petitioner is in fact an educated lady and at times had worked at U.A.E in Dubai bank and earned a handsome salary and even got promoted and worked as Senior Bank Official as per her complaint. Now at this stage after losing the case on earlier two occasions it would not be in the fitness of the situation to accept that the petitioner/complainant was not represented properly before the J.M.F.C. and what she produced before the concerned advocate to be filed in the Court was manipulated by the then advocate. In any event under the writ jurisdiction there is nothing to entertain in the present criminal writ petition and to give any relief as prayed and hence at the admission stage itself the present writ petition is dismissed and disposed off. 8. Rule discharged.