Jawad Rahim, J :-

This revision petition is by the husband against the order dated 5.1.2008 in Crl. M/s. No. 435/2007 passed under Sections 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. The petition is listed for admission after notice to the respondent. In response to which, the learned Counsel has represented her. Considering legal issues that arise for consideration, the petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal.

3. The contextual facts relevant for consideration are: Smt. Savitha the respondent herein filed a petition complaining of domestic violence against the revision petitioner and along with the petition filed an I.A. under Sections 20 and 22 of the said Act for grant of interim relief on the premise that she was married to the petitioner according to the Hindu rites and customs of their community and in this regard, the petitioner had compelled and received from her and her parents dowry. Despite incurring of huge expenses for marriage and presentation of gold ornament’s to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs, the petitioner was not satisfied and extracted Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and further demanded additional amount of Rs. l lakh as dowry. As it was not possible for her and her parents to succumb to such demands, he harassed her physically and mentally making her life miserable. However, out of the wedlock, two children are born that also did not solve the problem. She was totally depressed due to such acts of the petitioner. She and her children were rendered destitute and are dependents on her family members. Since the conduct of the petitioner showed no material change, she chose to file a petition before the jurisdictional magistrate for relief under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (herein after referred to as the Act, for brevity).

4. On presentation of such petition and I.A., the learned jurisdictional Magistrate issued prior notice and summoned the respondent. Respondent therein is the petitioner in this case. He entered appearance and filed counter affidavit against the application denying all the allegations of torture or domestic violence or that he had income of more than Rs. 1 lakh and that he• had deliberately neglected to maintain the respondent and children.

5. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate considering the mandate of the provisions of the Act requiring expeditious disposal appears to have proceeded to conduct "enquiry" summarily. Accepting the grounds urged by the respondent herein (petitioner before him) in the affidavit where she had referred to quantum of income the petitioner rejected his contention of inability to pay the amount and passed the impugned order fixing the maintenance at Rs. 30,000/- per month that includes maintenance of the children as well. Direction was also issued that he shall pay Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards mental harassment. Though in the order, it is mentioned that the said direction shall be complied till further orders, the order undoubtedly is enforceable.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved it is before this Court urging following grounds:

(i) That the impugned order is unsustainable as it has been passed without granting him full opportunity to defend against the interim order directing him to pay maintenance;

(ii) Non-grant of opportunity has deprived him the benefit of placing such material which is available with him to substantiate that he had a good case as on the date of passing of the order;

(iii) The interim order is arbitrary, unjust and against the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(iv) The interim order is liable to be set aside as the magistrate has failed to conduct an inquiry as required under Section 23 or 28 of the Act.

7. In support of these grounds, learned Counsel, Sri Balan, would contend that on the motion interlocutory application by the respondent, the magistrate did not grant an ex-parte order. He had ordered prior notice of