Bibek Chaudhuri, J.—Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State.

2. An appellate order under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter described as the said Act) is under challenge in the instant revision.

3. It is pertinent to mention that the opposite party no. 2 filed Domestic Violence Case No. 13 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna. An order of monetary relief for maintenance as well as in lieu of rent, in case the opposite party no. 2 is allowed to stay in the shared household, was passed by the trial court. The said order was affirmed by the appellate court directing, inter alia, that the petitioner no.1 shall provide alternative accommodation of same level to the opposite party no. 2, failing which he shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to her for arranging residential accommodation. The petitioner no. 1 was further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the applicant in addition to Rs.4,000/- which the applicant has been receiving in compliance of order passed in Maintenance Case No. 73(M) of 2007. The said order is under challenge in the instant revision.

4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that petitioner’s no.1 marriage was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 on 15th May, 1997. After two years of marriage a ceremony commonly known as “Gauna” was performed on 19th November, 1999 and the opposite party no. 2 went to her matrimonial home. The petitioner no. 1 got his employment after performance of “Gauna” sometimes in February, 2006.

5. The opposite party no. 2 filed a written complain before the Kadamkuan Police Station, on the basis of which a case under Section 498A was registered against the husband/petitioner no.1 and other matrimonial relations of the opposite party no. 2. The trial court convicted the husband for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and other accused persons were acquitted. The husband preferred an appeal which was allowed and the order of conviction and sentence was set aside. Subsequently, on 21st August, 2005, the present petitioner no.1 /husband filed a suit for divorce, which was registered initially as Matrimonial Suit No. 665 of 2005. On the prayer made by the opposite party no.2, the case was transferred to Patna and re-numbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 559 of 2007. The suit for divorce was initially dismissed on contest. Against the said order of dismissal the petitioner no.1 preferred an appeal before this Court. The appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court and a decree of divorce was passed on the ground of cruelty and torture perpetrated by the opposite party no. 2 upon the petitioner no.1 vide order dated 15th March, 2017. The opposite party no.2 preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16931 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed sometimes on 18th July, 2017. After the grant of decree of divorce the petitioner no.1 married again for the second time and in the said wedlock his wife gave birth of a male child. The opposite party no. 2 also filed a Maintenance Case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the trial court passed an order directing the petitioner no.1. to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month. Against the said order of maintenance the opposite party no. 2 preferred a Criminal Revision before this Court and the said revision was disposed of directing the petitioner no.1 to pay a sum equivalent to 1/3 of his monthly salary. The petitioner no.1 has been going on paying the said amount to the opposite party no. 2 in hand regularly.

6. Under such factual backdrop, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that at present there is no domestic relationship between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 after grant of decree of divorce. Secondly, since the decree of divorce was passed on the ground of physical and mental cruelty perpetrated by opposite party no.