This revision application is directed against the order dated 05.01.2010 passed by Sessions Judge,Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2009, whereby with modification in quantum of maintenance allowance he dismiss the appeal filed against the order dated 09.09.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in Cr. Misc. (DV)case no. 03 of 2009.

2. It appears that O.P.No.2 has filed an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( hereinafter refer as "Act") for grant of maintenance as the petitioner, ( husband of O.P.No.2) had committed domestic violence upon her. It further appears that Chief Judicial Magistrate had issued notice to the petitioner and, thereafter, petitioner filed written statement. Then, both the parties adduced evidence in support of their case. It further appears that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara while passing order dated 09.09.2009 had come to the conclusion that petitioner committed domestic violence and, accordingly, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to O.P.No.2 to the tune of Rs. 4000/- per month. He further directed that petitioner should pay Rs. 2000/- towards maintenance of his son. The Chief Judicial Magistrate further directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 30,000/- towards damages caused to the "Stridhan" of O.P.No.2. It appears that aforesaid order of Chief Judicial Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2009 in the court of Sessions Judge, Jamtara, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2010 with modification in the maintenance allowance payable to O.P.No.2 and her son. Learned Sessions Judge directed that petitioner shall pay . 2500/- per month to? O.P.No.2 and Rs. 1500/- per month to her son as maintenance allowance.

3. While assailing aforesaid two orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per proviso to Section 12 of the Act , it is imperative upon the Magistrate to call for a report from the Protection Officer and consider the same before passing any final order on the application filed by aggrieved person. It is submitted that in the instant case, Magistrate has not called any report from the Protection Officer and passed order without considering it. Hence, order of Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that for the same relief, O.P.No.2 had filed a complaint case bearing P.C.R.Case no. 385/2006 under section 498A,379 and 323 I.P.C. It is submitted that in aforesaid case petitioner was discharged from the said complaint case because no witness was produced by the complainant in that case. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present application under section 12 of the said Act is not maintainable.

4. It is further submitted that O.P.No. 2 has not produced any medical bill showing that she incurred Rs. 25,000/- towards her medical expenses. Thus, the order of the learned courts below awarding medical expenses is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that no report of Nephrologist has not been filed to show that O.P.No.2 was suffering from Kidney disease. Thus finding of the court below that she was suffering from kidney disease cannot be sustained.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that as per proviso to section 12 of the Act a Magistrate is required to consider the report of Protection Officer, provide the same was received in his court. If the Protection Officer did not submit any report, then in that case it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to call for a report from the Protection Officer and consider the same.

6. It is further submitted that admittedly, in this case, report of Protection Officer has not been received in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara. Under the said circumstance, non-consideration of said report before passing impugned order have no bearing on it.

7. It is further submitted that petitioner has been discharged in