The Court can devise its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 of the PWDV Act, and any departure from the provisions of Cr.P.C. will not vitiate the proceeding.

Heard Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Nabachandra, learned counsel for the re­spondent.

2. The revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 6.5.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East in Cril. Appeal Case No. 8 of 2013 by which the appeal filed by the present petitioner/ap­pellant therein was dismissed.

The present petition raises the issue as to the nature of the proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. As we proceed, we may refer to the bare minimum facts of the case as can be gath­ered from the pleadings. One Smt. Moirangthem Guni Devi, the respondent herein filed a complaint before the Chief Ju­dicial Magistrate, Imphal East under section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Do­mestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short PWDV Act) against the present petitioner seeking reliefs, inter alia, for:--

(i) Protection under section 18, PWDV Act,

(ii) Monetary relief under section 20, PWDV Act,

(iii) Compensation order under section 22, PWDV Act,

(iv) Monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 20,000/-,

12. Compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

The said complaint was filed stating that the complainant was married to the present petitioner in the year 1994 by performing Loukhatpa Ceremony (a form of marriage locally ) and thereafter lived as husband and wife out of which wedlock, one daughter (now 16 years) and a son (now 13 years) were born. While the daughter is with the father, the son is with the complainant. After the said marriage, some time in the year 2008, some differences arose between the wife and the husband. According to the com­plainant, she was physically and verbally abused since the month of March, 2009. The petitioner took another woman as his wife and started neglecting the complainant be­cause of which the said complaint was filed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, took of the said complaint under sec­tion 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Cril. I Case No. 66 of 2013 on 4.12.2012 and issued process under section 204, Cr.P.C. to the present petitioner. As the petitioner did not appear before the Chief Judicial Magis­trate, Imphal East, in spite of proper service of summons/notice, the Chief Judicial Mag­istrate, proceeded with the matter and heard the matter ex parte on 28.12.2012 and passed the order on 7.01.2013. In the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, observed that after proper notice, the respondent (the present petitioner) did not turn up and no reason for failure to appear before the Court was also shown and did not file any written objection to the complaint petition though he had once filed an application for adjournment which was granted but he did not turn up sub­sequently. Accordingly, Chief Judicial Mag­istrate proceeded in absence of the petitioner and recorded the statement of 4 witnesses produced by the complainant including herself. The Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of evidence so tendered in the Court observed that the complainant and the present petitioner were married in the month of De­cember, 1994 out which wedlock, a son and a daughter were born. The Chief Judicial Magistrate also accepted that the plea of com­plainant that she was subjected to physical and verbal abuse since the year 2008 and was financially neglected after the petitioner had taken another woman as his wife and started living in another place. The Chief Judicial Magistrate also considered the domestic in­cident report prepared by the Protection Of­ficer, Imphal East District, which was in favour of the complainant. After consider­ing the aforesaid materials, the Chief Judi­cial Magistrate, Imphal East was satisfied that the complainant was able to prove the do­mestic violence perpetrated by the petitioner by causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant including economic dep­rivation within the ambit of Section 3 of the PWDV Act. Accordingly, Chi