IMPORTANT POINT
Interim maintenance can be granted based on prima facie evidence, allowing for future rebuttal, as established under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application under Sections 397read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2021, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the order dated 19.01.2021, passed by the learned JMFC, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. D.V. Case No. 16/2019, was affirmed.

3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 herein, who is the wife of the petitioner, filed one Misc. D.V. Case No. 16/2019, under Sections 12 & 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 20 05 praying for relief under Sections 18 /19/20/222 of the said Act before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar against the petitioner alleging domestic violence and claiming monetary relief for herself and her daughter including compensation, interim relief, etc. The petitioner, after receiving the notice, appeared before the learned Trial Court below and contested the case by filing Written Statement denying all the allegations and claims made by the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cachar, Silchar, vide Order dated 19.01.2021, directed the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No. 2 herein, Rs. 1,000/- per month to the child and Rs. 1,500/- per month for the education expenses of the said child, i.e. in total Rs. 4,500/- per month as interim maintenance, until further order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 19.01.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cachar, Silchar, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 20 05 before the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, which was registered as Criminal Appeal Case No. 01/2021. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, vide Order dated 18.04.2022, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 19.01.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Misc. D.V. Case No. 16/2019.

4. Accordingly, on being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2021, as well as the order dated 19.01.2021, passed by the learned JMFC, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. D.V. Case No. 16/2019, the present criminal revision petition has been preferred.

5. Mr. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Appellate Court has committed gross error of jurisdiction while passing the impugned judgment and as such the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the PWs- 1 & 2, i.e. the respondent No. 2 herein and her mother, respectively, are yet to be cross-examined by the defence in regards to the veracity of their depositions in terms of Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act . However, the learned Appellate Court has observed that until the evidence of PWs-1 & 2 are rebutted in cross-examination by the defence, the same cannot be discarded, which is totally misinterpretation of the established procedural law.

6. Mr. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge made an observation in his judgment that the appeal was preferred only against the interim order which is not tenable in the eye of law and at best a revision ought to have been preferred by the present petitioner, but the learned