B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. Both the criminal petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order since identical issues have been raised in both the criminal petitions. Besides this, in both the cases the order of a Judicial Magistrate, taking cognizance of a complaint filed by the respondent No., 2 Mustt, Wahida Begum under Sections 18,19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (briefly the "D.V. Act"), has been assailed. After taking cognizance of the complaint, notices have been issued to the respondents in the said case to show cause as to why the interim maintenance allowance shall not be granted to the complainant. Heard Mr. Pran Bora as well as Mr. S. Banik, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the complainant/respondent No. 2 was represented by Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Counsel.

2. It may also be mentioned here that the order dated 2.9.2010, passed by the learned JMFC, Tinsukia in Misc. Case No. 08/DV of 2010, whereby cognizance of the complaint has been taken, was challenged by one of the respondents before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No. 32(3) of 2010. The said appeal has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated