An appellate court cannot enhance the maintenance amount awarded by a Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the absence of a specific challenge to the Magistrate's order.

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - The petitioner Prasanta Hazra married the Opposite Party No.1 Ranju Hazra in the year 2005. According to Ranju a sum of Rupees fifty thousand was given in cash as dowry apart from golden ornaments weighing about five Bhories and other utensils. Soon after her marriage Ranju was subjected to physical and mental torture by her in-laws. Ranju left her matrimonial home and stated residing with her parents. She lodged a complaint with the prescribed authority being the Protection Officer within the meaning of Section 8 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 2005). The Protection Officer caused an enquiry and submitted a report to the learned Magistrate. As per the report of the Protection Officer, Ranju was subjected to physical and mental torture. The Protection Officer stated in his report that Ranju was not provided with adequate food at her matrimonial home. She was kept in starvation. She was administered poison and assaulted mercilessly. The articles given in marriage were also taken away by her in-laws. Prasanta appeared before the learned Magistrate and submitted his written objection. He denied the allegation of torture and claimed that Ranju deserted her matrimonial home voluntarily. Prasanta also claimed he was drawing a salary of rupees one thousand per month from his employer being a Private Diagnostic Centre. The learned Magistrate upon hearing the rival .contentions and considering the evidence, came to a finding that the certificate of income was issued by Prasanta's uncle being the owner of the Diagnostic Centre and as such there was every room for doubt as to the actual Income of Prasanta. The learned Magistrate ultimately passed an order" directing Payment of maintenance at the rate of rupees eight hundred per month under Section 20(d) on the said Act of 2005. The learned Magistrate also directed payment of rupees six thousand by the husband and rupees five hundred by the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the said order Prasanta and Ram Chandra Hazra approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track. First Court, Burdwan by preferring an appeal under Section 29 of the said Act of 2005. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon considering the evidence on record and the rival contentions came to a finding that the learned Magistrate did not approach the problem In a right direction. According the Court of appeal, the learned Magistrate proceeded to consider the complaint of the wife on its face value without considering the point of view of the other side. The learned Judge also observed that the alleged verbal and emotional abuse could not be considered as domestic violence in absence of cogent proof. The learned Judge also observed that the direction with regard to return of stridhan property was highly arbitrary and without application of judicial mind and judicial consideration. The learned Judge also observed that Ranju was not willing to lead family life with the appellant No.1. To be precise, learned Judge rejected each and every finding of the Court below. However, the learned Judge ultimately came to conclusion that Prasanta was obliged to make payment of monthly maintenance as he was bound to maintain his wife. The learned Magistrate allowed the appeal In part, set aside the direction for payment of compensation under Section 22 by the Opposite Party No.2 as well as direction with regard to return of stridhan property. The appellate Court enhanced the amount of maintenance from rupees eight hundred to fifteen hundred to be paid, from the date of filing of the petition coupled with a direction to make payment of the arrear maintenance by monthly installments.

2. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Session Judge. Prasanta approached this Court by filing this instant application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the part of the order that directed pay