JUDGMENT :

Kausik Chanda, J.

Despite service, none appears on behalf of the husband/opposite party.

2. In this revisional application, an order dated January 31, 2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Sealdah, South 24-Parganas, has been challenged. By the order impugned, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Sealdah, rejecting the prayer of the wife/petitioner for interim monetary assistance under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the said Act’).

3. Learned Magistrate rejected the application under Section 23 of the said Act mainly on the ground that the petitioner did not disclose the income of the husband/opposite party. The learned Magistrate observed that the income of the husband is subject to concrete evidence, and before him, it was a war of affidavit-versus-affidavit. When the wife/petitioner has not specifically disclosed the income of the husband, no relief under Section 23 of the said Act could be granted.

4. The learned Sessions Judge approved the reasoning of the learned Magistrate and further observed that when the husband pro