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