JUDGMENT : - Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This petition is instituted against the judgment dated 7.5.2009 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.18-N/10 of 2008. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, filed a complaint against the respondents in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. According to the petitioner, she was legally wedded wife of respondent No.1, Shivander Pal,. Three Children, namely, Bhupender alias Vivender, Gogi and Shibu were born out of the wedlock. The children were in her care and custody. She was tortured by the respondents time and again and treated with cruelty. She was unable to fulfill dowry demand of the respondents. She was forced to leave the matrimonial house. She was put on fire. She was not got medically treated by the Respondent No.1 while visiting house of her parents at Rajpur, used to prevail upon to take her back to matrimonial house. Her son Master Bhupender Singh alias Vivender was studying in private school at Rajpur. However, in the month of January 2007, respondent No.1 took forcible custody of her child. It is in these circumstances, she filed petition against the respondents. 3. Notices were issued to the respondents. The petition was contested by the respondents. It is admitted that the petitioner was legally wedded wife of respondent No.1. Three children were born out of the wedlock. They denied that they ever tortured the petitioner on account of dowry and she was forced to live with her parents. It was also denied that the petitioner was not provided basic daily needs etc. She was residing in the house of her parents on her own volition. The allegation of burning the petitioner was denied. It was denied that custody of child was taken forcibly. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 25.8.2008 allowed the petition. The petitioner was held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation from the respondents and maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month as expenses for food, clothes, medical and other basic needs from respondent No.1. However, prayer for custody of the child, namely, Bhupinder Singh was denied. 5. The petitioner was held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation from the respondents and maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month as expenses for food, clothes, medical and other basic needs from respondent No.1. However, prayer for custody of the child, namely, Bhupinder Singh was denied. 5. Since custody of child, namely, Bhupinder Singh, was not given to the petitioner, she filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.18-N/10 of 2008 against the order dated 25.8.2008 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Respondents also filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.19-N/10 of 2008 against the order dated 25.8.2008 before the learned Additional Sessions by the petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents vide common judgment dated 7.5.2009. Hence, the present petition. 6. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Advocate, has supported the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate dated 25.8.2008, as stated hereinabove. According to her, the petitioner was maltreated by the respondents. Her client was tortured and treated with cruelty by the respondents. She was forced to leave the matrimonial house. The custody of one of the child was also forcibly taken away by respondent No.1. However, she has not pressed this appeal with regard to custody of Master Bhupender Singh. 7. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned Advocate, has supported the judgment, dated 7.5.2009. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record and pleadings carefully. 9. PW1, Sheela Devi, deposed that her marriage was solemnized with respondent No.1 on 18.9.2002. Three children were born out of the wedlock. The respondents started giving beatings to her. She was used to be harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. She was put on fire by the respondents. She received burn injuries on her neck, arms and abdomen. She was not got treated by the respondents. She had to go to her matrimonial house. She was got treated by her father. She also got her son admitted in a private school. Respondent No.1 had forcibly taken custody of her child, Bhupender from the school. She was forced to live with her parents. She had to look after two children. The entire expenditure is being borne by her father. Her father spent about Rs.35,000/- for getting her treated after being burnt by the respondents. In crosswith her husband for two years. She was harassed by the respondents daily. She was forced to live with her parents. She had to look after two children. The entire expenditure is being borne by her father. Her father spent about Rs.35,000/- for getting her treated after being burnt by the respondents. In crosswith her husband for two years. She was harassed by the respondents daily. She had not lodged any report with the police. She denied suggestion that she was got treated by her in-laws. She was turned out of the matrimonial house. She denied suggestion that she herself sprinkled oil on her. 10. PW2, Ram Swaroop, father of the petitioner, deposed that marriage of her daughter was solemnized with respondent No.1 four years back. Three children were born out of the wedlock. Respondents used to beat her daughter for bringing insufficient dowry. They had disclosed about their caste at the time of marriage and respondents had not objected to it. The respondents burnt his daughter. He got his daughter treated at Lamon Hospital, Herbatpur. Respondents did not visit his daughter when she was admitted in the Hospital. He had spent Rs.30,000/- towards her medical treatment. Monthly medical expenditure of his daughter was Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/-. The complaint was got registered against the respondents under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, monthly income of respondent No.1 was Rs.10,000/-. In cross-examination, he deposed that respondent No.1 used to demand dowry. 11. PW3, Naveen Sharma, only deposed about admission of the petitioner’s son in a private school. 12. RW1, Harbans Singh deposed that marriage of his son was solemnized with the petitioner on 18.9.2002. She was never harassed by anybody. They never demanded dowry. The petitioner had put herself on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil. He had extinguished fire. He called the doctor. He got the petitioner treated for about 1 ½ to 2 months. In his cross-examination, he admitted denied suggestion that the petitioner was tortured. He admitted that neck of the petitioner was also burnt. He had extinguished the fire with the help of the blanket. He could not disclose why the petitioner was not got treated in Government Hospital after she was burnt. According to him, he had spent a sum of Rs.15,000/- for treatment of the petitioner, however, he could not produce bills etc.. 13. RW2, Shivander Pal, deposed that no beatings were given to the petitioner. No dowry was ever demanded. He could not disclose why the petitioner was not got treated in Government Hospital after she was burnt. According to him, he had spent a sum of Rs.15,000/- for treatment of the petitioner, however, he could not produce bills etc.. 13. RW2, Shivander Pal, deposed that no beatings were given to the petitioner. No dowry was ever demanded. Family of the petitioner insisted him to live with them. He never put petitioner on fire. Rather, he was not present in the house at that time. He had come after about 4-5 days. The petitioner was got treated by the doctor. The doctor used to come to their house. The petitioner was got treated for two months. Her brother had taken away her to his house. He used to visit parental house of the petitioner. 14. RW3, Inder Preet Kaur, deposed that Master Bhupender Singh was admitted in the school on 20.12.2006. 15. What emerges from the statements of PW1, Sheela and PW2, Ram Swaroop is that the marriage between PW1 Sheela Devi and RW2 Shivander Pal Singh was solemnized on 18.9.2002. Three children were born out of the wedlock. PW1 Sheela categorically deposed that she was put on fire by the respondents. They did not get her medically treated. It was her father, who get her medically treated from the Doctor at Lamon Hospital, Hesbatpur. Her father had spent Rs.30,000/- on her treatment. Though, RW1 Harbans Singh, father-in-law of the petitioner, deposed that he got the petitioner medically treated from the doctor, however, he could not produce any record to this effect. RW1, Harbans Singh, also deposed that the petitioner herself put her on fire. It is not believable why a respondents was very suspicious. The petitioner was not admitted in a Government Hospital. The statement of RW2 Shivander Pal that a doctor used to come to his house to treat the petitioner is not substantiated. Name of the doctor has not been disclosed by RW2 Shivander Pal. 16. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned Advocate, has argued that respondent No.1 always wanted the petitioner to stay with him at his house. According to him, she had gone to her parental house on her own volition. This cannot be believed. Respondents created circumstances, which forced the petitioner to live in her parental house. PW2 Ram Swaroop is looking after and maintaining the petitioner and her children. According to him, she had gone to her parental house on her own volition. This cannot be believed. Respondents created circumstances, which forced the petitioner to live in her parental house. PW2 Ram Swaroop is looking after and maintaining the petitioner and her children. It has come in the statement of PW2 Ram Swaroop that income of respondent No.1 was Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner was constrained to lodge an FIR, Ext.PE since she was continuously treated with mental as well as physically cruelty. She had no other alternative, but to file FIR against the respondents. She was given beatings and even put on fire by the respondents. Statements of PW1 Sheela and PW2 Ram Swaroop have to read in entirety. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in law by taking into consideration few lines of the petitioner’s statement, whereby she deposed that she stayed at her matrimonial house for about 2 ½ months. It has also come on record that she was taken by her father after she was burnt by the respondents and she was treated at Lamon Hospital, Herbatpur. Petitioner’s father has categorically deposed that he had spent a sum of Rs.30,000/-on medical treatment of the petitioner. When the petitioner was burnt by the respondents, presumption can be drawn that she was got medically treated by her father by spending at least a sum of has not produced any medical bills to establish on record that he got the petitioner medically treated. Father was not supposed to collect the medical bills, when his daughter was burnt. His primary concern was to get his daughter treated at the earliest. Statement of PW2 Ram Swaroop, father of the petitioner, inspires confidence in the facts and circumstances that it was he, who had been looking after and maintaining the petitioner and her children and got her treated from the doctor. His statement before the Court was sufficient to establish that he incurred expenditure towards treatment of his daughter. Adverse circumstances have been created by the respondents to force the petitioner to live with her father. No married girl would readily leave her matrimonial house. The acts and conduct of the respondents not providing the petitioner with basic necessities of the life, harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry amount to domestic violence. She has been harmed and harassed to meet the unlawful demand of dowry. No married girl would readily leave her matrimonial house. The acts and conduct of the respondents not providing the petitioner with basic necessities of the life, harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry amount to domestic violence. She has been harmed and harassed to meet the unlawful demand of dowry. The petitioner has been treated with physical as well as mental cruelty. She has been deprived of basic necessities of life. She was entitled to enjoy the domestic relationship and avail all facilities available to her in her matrimonial house. The fact that respondent No.1 had been visiting the petitioner after she left her matrimonial house will not absolve and exonerate the respondents. She was hoping against hope that her relations with the family of the respondent would improve. Father of the petitioner admitted Master Bhupender in a private school, who was taken away forcibly by respondent No.1. Merely that the petitioner lodged an FIR after few months of incident of burning will not have any effect on the merits of the case. The proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also erred in law by giving finding that since the incidents narrated by the petitioner were before 26.10.2006, her case would not be covered under the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 17. Learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mohit Yadam and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2010 (4) Cr.L.J. 3751 has held that the intention of the legislation is to provide certain remedies to the victims of domestic violence and also to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in the society. Therefore, the acts of the violence occurred prior to 25.10.2006 would come within the meaning of ‘domestic violence’ as defined under the Act. Learned Single Judge has held as under:- “37. If the remedies provided in the aforesaid mentioned provisions are applicable prospectively to the acts or omissions of domestic violence occurred prior to 26.11.2006, then the aggrieved persons who suffered violence prior to it, would be deprived of claiming any relief under the Act. Learned Single Judge has held as under:- “37. If the remedies provided in the aforesaid mentioned provisions are applicable prospectively to the acts or omissions of domestic violence occurred prior to 26.11.2006, then the aggrieved persons who suffered violence prior to it, would be deprived of claiming any relief under the Act. There is no justification or reason to deny certain remedies available to the women, who suffered domestic violence prior to 26.11.2006, under the Act, then the aggrieved persons who suffered prior to it, would be deprived of claiming any relief under the Act. There is no justification or reason to deny certain remedies provided to the women, who suffered domestic violence prior to 26.11.2006, under the Act. The object and purpose of enacting the Act would be defeated if narrow interpretation is given. No doubt, Article 29(1) of the Constitution of India prohibits the making of ex post facto criminal law with regard to conviction and sentence. The Domestic Violence Act, 2005, under no stretch of imagination, can be said to be ex post factor criminal law. Any act or omission under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 performed by the respondent prior to the Act came into force has no direct penal consequences of conviction or sentence. 38. From the above discussion, it is clear that the intention of the legislation is to provide certain remedies to the victims of domestic violence and also to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in the society. Therefore, the acts of violence occurred prior to 25.10.2006 would come within the meaning of ‘domestic violence’ as defined under the Act. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is retrospective in operation. 18. Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Mrs. Savita Bhanot vs. Lt. Col. V.D. Bhanot, 2010 (2) HLR 20 has held that a petition under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable even if the acts of domestic violence have been committed prior to coming into force of the Act. Learned Single Judge has held as under:- “3. Savita Bhanot vs. Lt. Col. V.D. Bhanot, 2010 (2) HLR 20 has held that a petition under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable even if the acts of domestic violence have been committed prior to coming into force of the Act. Learned Single Judge has held as under:- “3. The only question which comes up for determination by this Court is as to whether a petition under the provisions of the Act is maintainable by a woman, who had stopped living with the respondent, or by a woman, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence, prior to coming into force of the Act on 26th October 2006. 17. If the court takes the interpretation that a petition under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 cannot be filed by a woman unless she was living with the respondent, in the shared household, on the date this Act came into force, or a date subsequent thereto or that a petition under the provisions of the Act cannot be filed by a person who has been subjected to domestic violence before coming into force of the Act, that would amount to giving a discriminatory treatment to the Crl.M.C.No. 3959/2009 Page 19 of 22 woman who despite living with the respondent and having a domestic relationship with him before coming into force of the Act, is later compelled to live separately from him on account of the acts attributable to the respondent and to the woman who was, prior to coming into force of the Act, subjected to domestic violence, viz a viz, the women who are living with the respondent or women in respect of whom acts of domestic violence are committed after coming into force of the act. There can be no reasonable classification based upon an intelligible differentia between the women who are living with the respondent on the date of coming into force of the Act or who are subjected to domestic violence after coming into force of the Act on one hand and the women who were living with the respondent or who were subjected to domestic violence prior to coming into force of the Act, on the other hand. Therefore, any discriminatory treatment to women in either category would be violative of their constitutional court needs to eschew from taking an interpretation which would not only be violative of the rights conferred upon the citizens under Article 14 of the Constitution but would also result in denying Crl.M.C.No.3959/2009 Page 20 of 22 the benefit of the beneficial provisions of the Act to the women who have been subjected to domestic violence and are compelled to live separately from the respondent on account of his own acts of omission or commission. Such an interpretation would at least partly defeat the legislative intent behind enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was to provide an efficient and expeditious civil remedy to them, in order either to protect them against occurrence of domestic violence, or to give them compensation and other suitable reliefs, in respect of the violence to which they have been subjected. 18. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the considered view that a petition under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable even if the acts of domestic violence have been committed prior to coming into force of the Act or despite her having in the past lived together with the respondent a shared household woman is no more living with him, at the time of coming into force of the Act. It is be open for the Magistrate to pass appropriate order under the provisions of Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 or 23 of the Act on a petition filed by such a Crl.M.C.No.3959/2009 Page 21 of 22 woman and the person who commits breach of the protection order or interim protection order passed on an application filed by such a woman will be liable to punishment under Section 31 of the Act.” 19. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court have considered the aforesaid judgment in V.D. Bhanot vs. Savita Bhanot, (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 183. Their Lordships have held as under:- “12. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court have considered the aforesaid judgment in V.D. Bhanot vs. Savita Bhanot, (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 183. Their Lordships have held as under:- “12. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court that in looking into a complaint under Section 12 of the PWD Act, 2005, the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the PWD Act, could be taken into consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the PWD Act, 2005.” 20. Learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in Preetam Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (1) HLR 394 has held that even if the wife, who was driven out of her matrimonial home prior to commencement of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if continues to be deprived of all or any economic or financial resources to which she is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which she requires out of necessity, is entitled to move an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Learned Single Judge has held as under:- “12. If the provisions of Section 2(a) are read together with the provisions of Section 3 (iv) (a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is clear that a wife, even if, she was driven out of her matrimonial home prior to the commencement of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if continues to be deprived of all or any economic or financial resources to which she is entitled under any law or custom, whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which she requires out of necessity, is entitled to move an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The view that I am taking is also supported by a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Maroti Lande v. Sau. The view that I am taking is also supported by a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Maroti Lande v. Sau. Gangubai Maroti Lande, reported in 2012 CRLJ 87 , where the Court was of the view that deprivation to the benefits of a matrimonial home amounts to economic abuse and it generates a continuous cause of action.” 21. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saraswathy vs. Babu in Criminal Appeal No. 1999 of 2013, vs. Savita Bhanot (2012) 3 SCC 183 and held as under:- “13. In the present case, in view of the fact that even after the order passed y the Subordinate Judge the respondent-husband has not allowed the appellant-wife to reside in the shared household matrimonial house, we hold that there is a continuance of domestic violence committed by the respondent-husband against the appellant-wife. In view of the such continued domestic violence, it is not necessary for the courts below to decide whether the domestic violence is committed prior to the coming into force of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and whether such act alls within the definition of the term Domestic Violence’ as defined under Section 3 of the PWD Act, 2005. 14. The other issue that whether the conduct of the parties even prior to the commencement of the PWD Act, 2005 could be taken into consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 fell for consideration before this Court in V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot (2012) 3 SCC 183 . In the said, this Court held as under:- “12. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court that in looking into a complaint under Section 12 of the PWD Act, 2005, the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the PWD Act, could be taken into consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. In our view, the Delhi High Court has also rightly held that even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the PWD Act, 2005.” 15. In our view, the Delhi High Court has also rightly held that even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the PWD Act, 2005.” 15. We are of the view that the act of the respondent-husband squarely comes within the ambit of Section 3 of the PWD Act, 2005, which defines “domestic violence” in wide term. The High Court made an apparent error in holding that the conduct of the parties prior to the coming into force PWD Act, 2005 cannot be taken into consideration while passing an order. This is a case where the respondent-husband has not complied with the order and direction passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. He also misleads the Court by giving wrong statement before the High Court in the contempt petition filed harassed since 2000 is entitled for protection orders and residence orders under Section 18 and 19 of the PWD, Act, 2005 along with the maintenance as allowed by the Trial Court under Section 20 (d) of the PWD Act, 2005. Apart from these reliefs, she is also entitled for compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence committee by the respondent-husband. Therefore, in addition to the reliefs granted by the courts below, we are of the view that the appellant-wife should be compensated by the respondent-wife should be compensated by the respondent-husband. Hence, the respondent is hereby directed to pay compensation and damages to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the appellant-wife. 22. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned Advocate, has also argued that the remedy, if any, available to the petitioner to seek maintenance was under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the petition filed by the petitioner is pending before the competent court of law. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned Advocate. She has rightly taken recourse to remedies available to her under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 23. Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Karamchand and others vs. State NCT of Delhi and another, 2012(1) HLR 372 has held as under:- “8. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned Advocate. She has rightly taken recourse to remedies available to her under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 23. Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Karamchand and others vs. State NCT of Delhi and another, 2012(1) HLR 372 has held as under:- “8. As regards the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that the remedy, if any, available to respondent No.2 is under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and that the only way for respondent No.2 to seek maintenance under Section 20 of the Act would be under or in addition to Section 125 Cr.P.C., the said submission is contrary to the very spirit of the Act. A perusal of Section 20 of the Act clearly shows that the said provisions was made for granting monetary relief to a woman who claims to be a victim of domestic violence. The Section provides for such relief to be paid under four heads, one of which is payment of maintenance under or in addition to the maintenance sought under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. If the section petitioners, then clause 1(d) of Section 20 of the Act would be rendered otiose and if such had been the intention of the legislature then there would have been no need to enact a specific provision for payment of maintenance in the Act. In this view of the matter, the submission of the counsel for the petitioners is rejected as being untenable.” 24. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the petition is allowed and the order dated 7.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the order 25.8.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur in Cr. Case No. 13/2 of 2007 is restored. The order dated 25.8.2008 be implemented within a period of one month from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.