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 Woman 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 Shri S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioners and the complainant/respondent No. 2 was represented by Shri T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel.

2. It may also be mentioned here that the order dated 02.09.2010, 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 23.12.2010. In this way, the Crl. Petition No. 60 of 2011 has been filed after dismissal of the statutory appeal. Since there is no provision to challenge the appellate order, the Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Sections 401/397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

3. Although the narration of facts are not necessary to dispose of the criminal petitions, prudence demands that some salient features of the case may be briefly noted, which are as follows :

3.1 The complainant Mustt. Wahida Begum was married to one Md. Isa in the year 1994. After their marriage, they lived together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock a daughter was born to them in 2002. There is a dispute from the side of the petitioners about the paternity of the said daughter inasmuch as according to the petitioners, the husband had divorced the complainant on 20.03.1996. The fact of divorce again is a disputed one.

3.2 Be that as it may, the admitted facts are that the husband of the complainant died on 11.01.2010 and till then the complainant was living with her husband. Only after the death of the husband, the respondents in the complaint case instituted Title Suit No. 24 of 2010 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Tinsukia on 21.07.2010, seeking a decree of recovery of possession, amongst other reliefs. One of the other declarations, sought for, is that Mustt. Wahida Begum is not entitled to claim herself as wife of Md. Isa in view of her divorce on 20.03.1996. The said suit is still pending.

3.3 Soon after filing of the suit, the wife of Md. Isa filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act praying for a direction to the respondents to give her maintenance allowance, furnish details of debts and securities of her husband etc, inter alia, an order to restrain the respondents from disposing or alienating or transferring the immovable property of her husband.

3.4 The complaint was filed on 02.09.2010. On the very same day cognizance was taken and notice for interim maintenance was issued by the learned Magistrate.

4. The aforesaid order dated 02.09.2010, taking cognizance of the complainant, has been basically challenged on the ground that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the complaint without there being a 'domestic incident report' from a Protection Officer or a Service Provider. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners the aforesaid report is mandatory and sine-qua-non under the proviso to Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Shri Banik, learned counsel appearing in Criminal Petition No. 60 of 2011 also raised another plea that in the scheme of DV Act, the female persons cannot be impleaded as respondents.

5. For ready reference, Section 2 (f), relating to definition "domestic relationship" and Sec