There is yet another aspect of the matter that the respondent-complainant laid the complaint on 8th of February 2010 and during pendency of the complaint her husband expired on 17th of October 2010, as a consequence of which complainant against him was abated. In the considered opinion of this Court, therefore, learned trial Court has seriously erred in continuing proceedings against the present petitioners on wholly untenable grounds. On the face of it, when the complaint is bereft of pre-requisites of necessary ingredients prescribed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, further proceedings in the matter against the petitioners is nothing but a futile exercise which warrants clogging of the same perpetually to secure ends of justice.

In the instant case, the discord/acrimony between the spouses started from 1995 and since then complainant is not living with the petitioners and even there was a matrimonial dispute going on between the spouses, is sufficient to conclude that there is no iota of evidence to indicate that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the petitioners. Moreover, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, any claim of residence staked by respondent complainant against the petitioners is wholly untenable as per provisions of the Act of 2005.

In above view of the matter, if the proceedings are allowed to be continued before the learned trial Court on the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, it would obviously result in abuse of the process of the Court.