Point of law: Provision of the Section 29 of the Act, appeal lies against any order passed by the trial court but without preferring the appeal, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order after the pleadings between the parties is over. Such a casual approach is nothing but to frustrate the beneficial provision of the Act to debar the respondent/wife to get the benefit under the law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel representing the respondent.

2. The instant petition has been filed under Section 397/401/482 of the CrPC, challenging the impugned order dated 02.01.2020, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bajali at Pathsala, in C.R. Case No.57/2019, whereby the petitioner/husband has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.2500/-per month to the respondent/wife, contending that the aforesaid order is bad in law for violation of Section 8/9/12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 without the domestic incident report (in short, DIR) before passing any order and same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. Backdrop of the case is that respondent entered into marriage with the petitioner on 13.12.2015 and out of their wedlock, a child was born on 16.11.2016. The respondent/ wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(hereinafter referred to as the D.V. Act) read with Section 20/22/23 of the Act contending that soon after their marriage, her husband along with her in-laws used to torture her mentally and physically on minor issues. She was taunted on each and every aspect that she cannot use the household article, like motor pump to run washing machine, gas stove to prepare food and using of fan etc. etc. that she has not brought anything as stridhan and she has to arrange them from her parents. Many times, her mother and brother had to interfere into their family affairs to settle the matter but it was not helpful and her husband and in-laws used to torture mentally and physically on each and every occasion. She was not taken to hospital while she was suffering from some sort of ailments. Her husband even poured kerosene oil upon her on 09.05.2019 from which she luckily escaped. After the said incident, she left for her parental house along with her son and started living with her parents. Mentioning all details of the incidents, that her life is not safe at her husband’s house, she filed the aforesaid petition before the court praying for various reliefs and protection under the DV Act including the maintenance as well as compensation for her and her minor child along with a prayer for interim maintenance.

4. The petitioner herein filed the written statement after their appearance denying the allegations, contending that respondent/wife herself has left the matrimonial house at her own will and he is still willing to accept her and in the meantime on the basis of the petition filed by the respondent wife under Section 23 of the DV Act for interim relief, the court passed the impugned order dated 02.01.2020, the relevant portion of the order is extracted below:

“It is already seen that there are allegations and counter allegations by both the parties which are needed to be proved by supporting evidence adduced by the parties.

The undisputed fact available on record is that the aggrieved person and the respondents are in a domestic relationship and presently the aggrieved person is not living with the respondents. Thus, from the materials available on record, I am prima facie satisfied that the aggrieved person is a victim of domestic violence and as such I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper to grant monetary relief to the aggrieved person at this stage which will meet the need of her day to day expenses including the expenses of their minor child. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 namely Manjit Talukdar is directed to pay Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred) per month to the aggrieved person as interim monetary relief till disposal of this instant case.

The petition for interim relief to the aggrieved person is disposed of accordingly.”

5. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner/husband of the respondent is before this Court as aforesaid.

6. The prime contention raised in