The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order granting monetary relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 attains finality if not challenged, and any interference in the order would amount to a review, which is not legally permissible.

Heard the parties.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.08.2014, passed by Shri Nikesh Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Sessions Judge, VII, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 83 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the order dated 6.6.2014, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 1533 of 2012 was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

3. A complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 19.04.2012, in which it was alleged that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 had been solemnized on 20.05.1999 and out of the said wedlock, one son and a daughter was born. It has been alleged that at the time of marriage, gift worth Rs.2 lacs had been given but subsequently the complainant’s father had been compelled to give Rs. 2 lacs in the year 2000 and from the earning of the opposite party no. 2 and also with the financial help of the family, a land had been purchased, on which the present house/nursing home is situated. It has further been alleged that after few days of marriage, torture had started upon the opposite party no. 2. In the complaint petition, the complainant has stated that the complainant had to bear the expenses on the education and upbringing of her children and the petitioner did not spend a single farthing. It has also been alleged that the petitioner started leading an adulterous life with several women. Since the complainant is a doctor by profession, she was forced to keep a whole time governess for proper upbringing of the children but the petitioner had developed illicit relationship with the said girl also. On 4.5.2011, the complainant had reported the fear she was having with regard to danger to her life but somehow the matter was pacified.

4. An application was filed in C.P. Case no. 1533 of 2012 praying for monetary relief under section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad vide order dated 5.1.2013 directed that the opposite party (petitioner) shall bear the amount of Rs.1.5 lacs per annum for the educational and other expenses incurred for their children. An application was filed by the complainant for amendment with respect to monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act and on 19.08.2013, an order was passed in the said amendment application by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, wherein the same was allowed and the opposite party no. 2 was directed to incorporate the amendment in the relief portion. Against the aforesaid order of amendment, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 29 of the Act being Cr. Appeal No. 324 of 2013 and the learned Sessions Judge at Dhanbad vide judgment dated 7th February, 2014 was pleased to dismiss the said appeal. It further appears that the petitioner had filed an application under section 25(2) of the Act, in which it was prayed that the order dated 5.1.2013 in view of the changed circumstance be revoked. To the said application, a rejoinder was also filed by the opposite party no. 2 and finally vide order dated 6.6.2014, the said application was dismissed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad holding that the issue regarding majority of the children has already been considered in the earlier order dated 5.1.2013 and since there was no changed circumstance, the said application was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6.6.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 83 of 2014, which was, however, dismissed on 20th August, 2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is for protecting the right of women, who are victims of domestic violence within the family but as it appears that monetary relief had been sought for and was