The bench of Justice W. Diengdoh of Meghalaya High Court held that "On the authority of the decision cited above, this Court can also say that an application under Section 12 of the DV Act is not a complaint and the procedure and proceedings cannot be pursued by the parties or by the Magistrate under Sections 200, 202 and 204 of the Cr.P.C. respectively. On an application under Section 12 being filed, the Magistrate has to cause issue of Notice under Section 13 and to call for response from the respondent."

The bench further held that, "The prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings under the DV Act pending before the learned Magistrate at Shillong on this ground therefore cannot be allowed simply for the fact that an application under Section 12 of the DV Act is not a ‘complaint’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., but an ‘application’ and as such, proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. are not to be followed."

The court noted the submission of the advocate that, "the application under Section 12 of the DV Act, was filed inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner has failed to provide maintenance to the respondent and their minor child which comes within the fold of ‘economic abuse’ as defined under Explanation I of clause (d) of Section 3 of the DV Act and as such, the proceedings before the learned Magistrate must be allowed to come to its logical end."

While denying to quash the complaint the bench said, "The allegation of non-payment of maintenance for the upkeep of the respondent and their minor child is certainly a matter to be looked into by the Trial court and for this, the parties have to prove their respective case. This would thus not qualify as satisfaction of any of the guidelines laid down at para 102 of the Bhajan Lal case. It is also not one of the rarest of rare cases for this Court to take notice and invoke the powers under Section 482. The petitioner on this front too, cannot convince this Court to decide in his favour."