Heard both side for final disposal.

2. The proceedings under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act were initiated by respondent no.1 vide CC No.46/DV/2012. The said proceedings are pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 10th Court at Andheri Mumbai. The petitioner has challenged order dated 21st July, 2015, passed by the trial Court granting maintenance in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to respondent no.1 and order dated 15th February, 2016, passed by the Sessions Court in an Appeal preferred by the petitioner by modifying the same and directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance in the sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent no.1.

3. According to petitioner, respondent no.1 has filed a false proceedings in order to harass and extort money from the petitioner. In the proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 false and baseless allegations are made against the petitioner. It is contended that respondent no.1 has suppressed that the petitioner had pronounced three times oral Talaq “Islamic Permissible Divorce” against respondent no.1 and thereby the marital ties between the petitioner and respondent no.1 has come to an end by virtue of oral Talaq pronounced by the petitioner on 16th May, 2012. The application initiated by respondent no.1 is based on false and concocted averments. It is also contended that the mandatory requirement of report submitted by protection officer contradicts the allegations of domestic violence made by respondent no.1, before the trial Court in the said proceedings.

4. The Protection Officer had submitted the domestic incident report to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 10th Court, Mumbai, on 24th July, 2012. Alongwith the said report, the copy of the non-cognizable complaint made by respondent no.1 and registered with the concerned police station was also forwarded to the Court. Respondent no.1 filed an affidavit before the trial Court on 17th October, 2012, giving instances of purported the domestic violence committed by the petitioner against her. It was also stated that the details provided in the application for grant of relief under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been entered into on her instructions. It was further stated that the relief claimed in the applications are urgent. The petitioner filed his reply opposing the relief sought by respondent no.1. Learned Magistrate by order dated 21st July, 2015, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to respondent no.1, until further orders from the date of application. The petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Sessions Court challenging the order of maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 15th February, 2016, confirmed the findings of the trial Court. However, the maintenance amount was reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.6,000/-, per month from the date of the Domestic Violence Petition.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner made following submissions :

(i) The petitioner had pronounced three times oral Talaq and thereby the martial ties between the petitioner and respondent no.1 has come to an end. Reliance was placed on the Fatwa dated 16th May, 2012. It is submitted that the Talaq was pronounced on 16th May, 2012;

(ii) The report of the Protection Officer is contradictory to the allegations made by respondent no.1, in her application;

(ii) The marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.1 was not consummated. Respondent no.1 is not having any menstruation period. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to pronounce oral Talaq, which is supported by the Fatwa obtained from Mufti/Qazi Aziz-ur-Rehman;

(iv) The trial Court without appreciating the reply filed the petitioner to the interim application had come to the conclusion of granting the maintenance in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, per month to respondent no.1, until further order from the date of application;

(v) The petitioner was working in ASTT Garrison Engineer as Mate (Labour) (FGM) in the year 20