The provisions of Sections 26 and 36 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, allow for relief under the Act to be sought in any legal proceeding, including those initiated before or after the commencement of the Act, and that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law.

1. THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : Heard learned Advocates for both the petitioner and the opposite party.

2. THE petitioner/husband has filed this revisional application against the opposite party/wife praying for setting aside of the order dated 29th August, 2009 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 1.5th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C- 1897 of 2009. It is the case of the petitioner/husband that the opposite party filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, being Case No. C-1897 of 2009 against him alleging therein that their marriage was solemnized on February 16,1993 according to Hindu rites and customs and out of the said wed-lock, a male child was born, who is aged about seven years. Due to change in behaviour and conduct, the petitioner started neglecting the opposite party and developed illicit relation with one neighbouring girl and ultimately in June, 2007, the petitioner withdrew himself from the society of the opposite party. The opposite party being unable to maintain themselves instituted Misc. Case No. 2 of 2007 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Family Court, Calcutta, praying for maintenance for herself and for her minor son. The petitioner is a businessman and is earning about Rs. 60,000/- per month. So, the opposite party prayed for maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- for herself and Rs. 7,000/- for her minor son. The opposite party also filed an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in that proceeding. Learned Magistrate by his order dated 6.7.2009 passed in Case No. C-1897/2009 directed the respondent/petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife (Rs. 3,000 to the opposite party/wife and Rs. 2,000/- for her minor son) as interim maintenance till further order. Learned Magistrate rejected the petition of the respondent/husband filed on 14.08.2009 challenging the maintainability of the petition of the Opposite Party under Section 12 of the said Act, by an order dated 29.8.2009 passed in Case No. C-1897/09.

3. BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 29th August, 2009 the petitioner filed the instant revisional application.

4. THE opposite party/wife is contesting the revisional application denying the case of the petitioner/husband. Thereafter, an interim order was passed by this Court with direction that the petitioner shall go on paying a sum of Rs. 2,000/- each per month to the opposite party/wife as well as to her minor child as their monthly maintenance together with arrear maintenance by instalment till liquidation, while operation of the impugned order was stayed,

5. IT is to be considered now as to whether the impugned order suffered from any illegality or irregularity and the impugned order was justified or not.

6. IT has been submitted by Mr. Manik lal Poddar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in Case No. C-1897 of 2009 the present petitioner as respondent filed a petition on 14.8. 2009 challenging the maintainability of the said case on the ground that the present opposite party filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code being Misc. Case No. 2 of 2007 before the Family Court at Calcutta, and the said case has been fixed for evidence and for that reason the present case under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not maintainable and the present petitioner is now paying Rs. 4,000/- per month to the O.P/wife and her minor child as their monthly maintenance allowance together with Rs. 1,000/-per month as arrear maintenance allowance as per order of this Court and such order may be continued till disposal of the main maintenance application bearing Case No. C-1897 of 2009 and the trial of the said case may be expedited.

On the other hand, Mr. Brajesh Jha, learned Counsel for the opposite party has contended that th