The main legal point established is that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the husband has a legal obligation to provide monetary relief to his wife and adopted child, based on his financial capacity and moral responsibility.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J - Both the revisional applications were heard analogously and the court delivers the following judgment on conclusion of hearing.

2. Parties to both the revisions are married couple and their marital tie is still subsisting. In CRR No.3508 of 2019 the aggrieved person/wife is the petitioner, while in CRR No.2856 of 2019 the respondent and her mother are the petitioners. The dispute between the parties cropped up as a result of marital discord following filing of application under Section 12 read with Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter described as the said Act) filed by the aggrieved person/petitioner in CRR No.3508 of 2019.

3. The application under Section 12 read with other coordinate provisions of the said Act was registered as MISCN 4 of 2019 in 20th Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. By an order dated 29th June, 2019 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order on an application under Section 23(2) of the said Act which runs thus:

"That the prayer under Section 23 of this Act is allowed on contest. Petitioner do get an interim protection order under Section 18 of the said Act and respondents are restrained from committing, aiding or abetting any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to get an interim order under Section 19(f) of the said Act and the respondent No.1 is directed to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the petitioner as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay the rent for the same as per the choice of petitioner in Kolkata to the tune of rupees twenty thousand (Rs.20,000/-) per month which shall be payable by 3rd of every succeeding English Calendar month from the date of this order. Petitioner and her minor child are hereby entitled to interim maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) of the Act and accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to pay maintenance to petitioner and her minor son to the tune of rupees thirty thousand (Rs.30,000) per month for the petitioner and rupees ten thousand (Rs.10,000/- only) per month for their minor son which shall be payable by 3rd of every succeeding English Calendar month from the date of this order. Since, the child is in custody of petitioner so, there is no need of any interim order regarding custody of that child as it is also not leveled up."

4. The respondent/husband challenged the above mentioned order under Section 29 of the said Act by filing Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2019 in the court of the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at Calcutta. The learned Chief Judge by his judgment dated 21st August, 2019 disposed of the said appeal directing the husband to pay Rs.15000/- per month to his wife as interim monetary relief and Rs.8000/- per month towards rent for alternative accommodation with effect from the date of the order passed in Misc Case No.4 of 2019.

5. The legality, validity and propriety of the said order was challenged by both the parties preferring separate revisional applications.

6. The aggrieved person/wife has pleaded that the learned Judge in appeal failed to consider the basic requirement of the petitioner, her social and economic status in relation to her husband and committed gross illegality and material irregularity in reducing the quantum of interim monetary relief as granted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while disposing of the application under Section 23(2) of the said Act.

7. The respondent/husband, on the other hand has challenged the impugned judgment alleging, inter alia, that the learned Court of Appeal failed to consider that he does not even have the financial capacity to pay interim monetary relief and rent towards separate accommodation for his wife as fixed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court. Under the premises mentioned above the revisional applications in hand are required to be adjudicated upon and disposed of.

8. It is the c