JUDGMENT : Indrajit Chatterjee, J. This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called as the Code) wherein this petitioner/husband has prayed for quashing of the proceeding as filed by the wife/opposite party under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as the said Act of 2005) which proceeding is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Barrackpore being Misc. Case No. 141 of 2013. 2. Before I proceed further, I may say that in all, four cases were filed by this opposite party/wife – (i) one under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which was compromised as per assurance given by the accused/husband, (ii) again one under Section 498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code in which this opposite party filed no objection so that her husband may get bail, (iii) one application under Section 125 of the Code and (iv) this proceeding under the said Act of 2005. 3. One divorce case was filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was registered as Mat Suit 944 of 2005 and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I as per ex parte order passed on 12th March, 2010. 4. One application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code was filed by the wife for setting aside the ex parte order but that was refused and against that order, one appeal being F.M.A. 246 of 2013 has been filed before this Court, which is still pending, wherein this Court passed an interim order restraining the husband from contracting with any second marriage. 5. It is the main contention of Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the husband that after granting of divorce with effect from 12th March, 2010, there was no matrimonial relationship between the parties and he took me to Section 2(a) of the Act of 2005 to convince this court that this petitioner/wife cannot be termed as 'aggrieved person'. Section 2(a) of the said Act of 2005 has defined "aggrieved person" as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. 6. Section 2(a) of the said Act of 2005 has defined "aggrieved person" as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. 6. Thus, he contended that as this petitioner was not an aggrieved party, this application under Section 12 of the said Act of 2005 is not maintainable which be quashed. 7. He took me to Section 2(s) of the said Act of 2005 which runs thus:- 2(s) "Shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household." 8. Learned Advocate pointed that as after the divorce, the domestic relationship is not surviving, the opposite party/wife cannot take recourse to Section 2(s) of the said Act of 2005. He also referred to a decision of the Apex Court as reported in 2016 Cr. L.J. 330 (Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Chowdhury & Anr.) wherein the Apex Court held that in a case of judicial separation, the legal relationship between the husband and the wife continues as it has not been snapped, but once the decree for divorce is passed, the parties become different. 9. It was the submission of Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite party/wife that this will not cover the point in issue of this case before the floor of this court as in this case, the petition under Section 12 of the 2005 Act has been filed by the wife alleging domestic violence which happened prior to the date of divorce. Bagchi, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite party/wife that this will not cover the point in issue of this case before the floor of this court as in this case, the petition under Section 12 of the 2005 Act has been filed by the wife alleging domestic violence which happened prior to the date of divorce. He further contended that if F.M.A. 246 of 2013 which is pending before this court is allowed in favour of the wife and this proceeding is quashed by this court, then the wife will be highly prejudiced who is a destitute lady and is rearing up a child. 10. He also took me to the decision of the Apex Court in Krishna Bhattacharjee (Supra) where this court cautioned the court below that more sensitive approach is expected from the courts where under the 2005 Act no relief can be granted. It should never be conceived of but, before throwing a petition at the threshold on the ground of maintainability, there has to be apposite discussion through deliberation on the issue raised and it should be borne in mind that helpless and hapless 'aggrieved person' under the 2005 Act approaches the court under compelling circumstances. 11. Mr. Bagchi also cited one unreported decision of this court as passed in C.R.R. 3963 of 2013 [Priti (Chandra]) v. Subhasish De & Another] wherein in a case where the petitioner/wife got a decree for nullity but still then the Hon'ble Single Judge held that she can still then be held to be one aggrieved person in view of Section 2(a) of the Act of 2005. Mr. Bagchi also referred to Section 2(f) of the said Act of 2005 to convince this court that the Act committed prior to divorce can very well be covered under that definition of domestic relationship. Thus, he contended that even if there was a divorce but as the petition under Section 12 of that Act relates to torture etc. prior to the decree of divorce, this pending proceeding cannot be quashed by this court by taking recourse under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is an extraordinary power vested with this superior court and to be exercised in rarest of the rare cases. 12. In reply, it has been submitted by Mr. prior to the decree of divorce, this pending proceeding cannot be quashed by this court by taking recourse under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is an extraordinary power vested with this superior court and to be exercised in rarest of the rare cases. 12. In reply, it has been submitted by Mr. Ghosh by taking me to the application under Section 12 of the said Act, 2005 (pages 20 to 23) to say that actually no cause of action was mentioned in the said application to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 12 of the said Act. Thus, he submitted that as there is no cause of action how can the said proceeding be allowed to continue before the trial court. He further contended that in the said petition, no date of occurrence has been pleaded to attract domestic violence as defined in Section 3 of the Act 2005. 13. In the Single Bench decision of this court "Priti Dey" (supra) the decision of the Apex Court as passed in "Krishna Bhattacharya" (supra) was not taken into consideration and as such the Single Bench decision cannot be a guiding factor for this co-ordinate Bench. 14. I must start with as to whether this wife can be treated as one "aggrieved person". Aggrieved person as I have told has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act of 2005. "Aggrieved person" means any woman who is, and has been, in a domestic relation with the respondent who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent (emphasis supplied by me). 15. Thus the legislature in its wisdom while defining aggrieved person only used present tense and not past tense. 16. This court is not unmindful of the definition of 'domestic relationship' as used in Section 2(f) and as per that definition the relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household. Thus, in that Sub-section (f) of Section 2 the legislature in its wisdom also considered past factual aspect which may be considered by the court when an application under Section 12 is filed. 17. Thus, in that Sub-section (f) of Section 2 the legislature in its wisdom also considered past factual aspect which may be considered by the court when an application under Section 12 is filed. 17. It is true that in exercising power under Section 482 of the Code the court must be vigilant that no injustice is caused to the other side in exercising that extraordinary jurisdiction and more particularly in a case of this nature wherein one helpless or hapless woman has approached this court. 18. I have gone through the decision of this Apex Court as passed in "Krishna Bhattacharya" (supra) wherein the court categorically held that wife does not cease to be an aggrieved person because of a decree for a judicial separation but once the decree for divorce is passed the parties become different. Thus, relying particularly on this sentence the court can say that after a decree for divorce the legal relationship between the husband and the wife is snapped. Here in the present case before the floor of this court the decree for divorce was granted in 2010 and the prayer for setting aside of the ex parte order was also rejected by the trial court. This court is not unmindful of the fact that one FAT is pending as filed by the wife assailing that order of granting an ex parte decree for divorce. Divorce means the cession of the legal relationship of husband and wife. I have gone through page no. 17 of this application which is the prayer portion of the wife as made out in a case under Section 12 of the said Act of 2005. She has prayed for a 'protection order' under Section 18 of the Act, 2005, prayed for right of residence under Section 19 of the said Act which includes the right to reside in the shared household, that monetary relief be given to her under Section 20 and that compensation or damages be paid under Section 22 of the said Act. The question is now whether after the divorce this petitioner can stay in the shared household or get any residential order under Section 19 of the said Act of 2005. Can a divorced wife claim right to reside to in the share household under Section 17 of the Act. My answer to this question is clear no. The question is now whether after the divorce this petitioner can stay in the shared household or get any residential order under Section 19 of the said Act of 2005. Can a divorced wife claim right to reside to in the share household under Section 17 of the Act. My answer to this question is clear no. This petitioner has already filed one application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and as such the order for maintenance can be passed by that court to give monetary relief to the wife. 19. Thus, the matter as stands now that after the decree for divorce has been pronounced, this wife cannot be termed as "aggrieved person" and if she is not one "aggrieved person" then she cannot maintain one application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. It may be noted that this application under Section 12 was filed in the year 2013 after three years of that ex parte decree for divorce. This delay in filing of this application for three years may also be considered in favour of the petitioner/husband, which can be treated as harassing one. It may also be noted that this misc. case was filed in 2013 and so also the F.M.A before this Court. The situation may alter if the ex parte order for divorce is cancelled by the Division Bench of this court in that FMA and if that is made this wife can very much maintain one application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 till that FMA is disposed of and that too in the affirmative this wife, I reiterate, cannot be treated as aggrieved party. This being the finding of this court, this court is of the opinion that the proceeding pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrack pore being Misc. Case No. 141 of 2013 is quashed but with liberty to the wife to come up with said petition only after the decree for divorce is cancelled by this court in that FMA referred to above. For the time being there is no use of proceeding with the litigation referred to above. 20. Thus, this application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C is an answer in favour of the petitioner/husband. 21. Let the proceeding referred to above be hereby quashed on the terms as mentioned above. 22. For the time being there is no use of proceeding with the litigation referred to above. 20. Thus, this application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C is an answer in favour of the petitioner/husband. 21. Let the proceeding referred to above be hereby quashed on the terms as mentioned above. 22. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned trial court. Certified copy be given to the parties on urgent basis as per rules, if applied for.