1. In the above-captioned first two petitions, quashing of impugned order of 23rd August, 2008 is sought by both the sides. In a complaint under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the DV Act), trial court vide impugned order of 23rd June, 2008 has directed husband-Ravi Dutta to pay maintenance of Rupees Twenty Thousand per month to wife- Kiran Dutta and another Rupees Twenty Thousand per month towards rental and another Rupees Twenty Thousand as compensation under Section 22 of the DV Act. In appeal, impugned order has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to trial court with following directions:-

(i) First of all, learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall determine as to whether the petitioner is an aggrieved person within the definition of Section 2(a) of the Act.

(ii) Thereafter, he shall call for a Domestic Incident Report from the Protection Officer or Service Provider.

(iii) It would always be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct both the parties to undergo counselling with a member of service provider as per Section 14 of the Act.

(iv) It would be also appropriate for the Magistrate to send