The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to relief under the PWDV Act based on the finding of a domestic relationship, and the permissibility of adjustment of maintenance allowance granted in a previous proceeding in a subsequent proceeding under a different statute.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - Appellate order dated 31st January, 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court at Contai under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter described as the PWDV Act for short) is under challenge in the instant revision.

2. The opposite party as petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act against the petitioner herein praying for reliefs under the provisions of Sections 18/19/20/21/22/23 of the PWDV Act before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai which was registered as Misc Case No.144 of 2016. In the said proceeding, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Contai passed an order on 20th March, 2018 directing the present petitioner to pay interim monetary relief at the rate of Rs.15000/- per month from the date of order in favour of his wife/opposite party under Section 23 of the PWDV Act.

3. The said order was assailed by the husband/petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2018. The learned Judge in the court of Appeal was pleased to dismiss the appeal affirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Misc Case No.144 of 2016.

4. In order to adjudicate legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order, it is important to narrate the following facts leading to the dispute between the parties:

1. The opposite party as petitioner has claimed that her marriage with the present petitioner was soleminsed on 14th August, 2013.

2. The husband/petitioner has challenged the factum of marriage between him and the opposite party. He has filed a suit for declaration of nullity of marriage against the opposite party in the jurisdictional Civil Court which was registered as O.S No.143 of 2016.

3. The opposite party/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner. Initially, application for interim maintenance was rejected by the learned Magistrate and the said order was affirmed by this Court in revision being CRR No.1722 of 2017. Subsequently however, the application under Section 125 of the Coder of Criminal Procedure was allowed on contest directing the present petitioner to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the rate of Rs.8000/- per month. The said order passed in Misc Case No.81 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court at Contai is affirmed by this Court in revision.

5. The opposite party has filed affidavit in opposition denying the allegations made out by the petitioner in the revisional application. She has further reiterated that she is the married wife of the petitioner and filed certain documents in support of her claim.

6. The petitioner in turn has also filed affidavit in reply and supplementary affidavit denying the opposite party's claim and marital status with him.

7. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the opposite party has claimed to be the married wife of the petitioner on the strength of her ration card where the name of the petitioner is recorded as her husband, a certificate issued by the Contai Municipality and an LIC Policy standing in the name of the opposite party. None of the above documents are proof of marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party. It is also submitted by him that all the abovementioned documents are in the nature of private documents. Therefore, the trial Court as well as the Court of Appeal below committed gross illegality by accepting those documents even as prima facie proof of marriage. Mr. Bhattacharya draws my attention to the following observation of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in CRR No.1722 of 2017. The said judgment was passed by this Court upon an application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the opposite party challenging an order of refusal of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure