- (1.) C.R.R. 405 of 2008 and C.R.R. 2074 of 2008 are taken up together as a common question of Law is involved in both the revisional applications. The common question of Law that has arisen in both the revisional applications is whether a revision is lies against an order passed by the Trial Court under section 23 of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in High Court where the Act is silent conspicuously about the scope of revision and there is provision of appeal only against an order passed under the Act.
(2.) BEFORE dealing with the question of maintainability raised by the Bar, it would be expedient to state the factual background of both the revisional applications. The facts leading to the revisional application, being No. C.R.R. 405 of 2008, is stated below, in short: Badra Taranum Sabir, (hereinafter referred to as "the O.P. No. 2") filed an application under section 12 of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against the present petitioners (1) Md. Sabir Hussain, (2) Ahmadi Begum, (3) Md. Dawood and (4) Md. Shahid, alleging therein that she was subjected to domestic violence in her matrimonial house, which is a "shared household". It was the case of the O.P. No. 2 that since inception of marriage, she was pressurised coupled with mental torture by her domestic relations in the "shared household", which is her matrimonial house, as she could not provide them with money according to their demand. The matrimonial disharmony ripened up and both the parties indulged themselves in various criminal proceedings. Following some incidents, one Talaknama' was sent by the petitioner No. 1, Md. Sabir Hussain, to the O.P. No. 2 on 14.1.2008. The O.P. No. 2, in turn, filed an application under section 12 of the Act praying for reliefs under sections 18,19, 20, and 22 of the Act, The learned Magistrate not only has taken cognizance of the complaint, but awarded interim monetary relief under section 23 of the Act in favour of the O.P. No. 2 to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month, which is to be realised from the petitioner No. 1, Md. Sabir Hussain. Md. Sabir Hussain and others, named earlier, have taken out this revisional application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for setting aside the order dated 25.1.2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta and alternatively quashing of the entire proceeding on various grounds. The facts leading to the revisional application, being C.R.R. No. 2074 of 2008, is stated below, in short: One Paromita Dass filed an application under section 12 of the Act in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, praying for reliefs under sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act against her husband, Sujoy Das, alleging therein that she was a victim of domestic violence since her marriage with Sujoy Das. She had to leave her matrimonial house in the month of September, 1996. Not only her husband inflicted physical and mental torture on her and her minor daughter, they were also not provided with sufficient food, clothing, medicines and other facilities of normal life. The learned Court pending disposal of the application under section 12 of the Act, passed an order dated 6.5.2008 awarding interim monetary relief to the tune of Rs.3,500/- per month to the petitioner, Paromita Dass, under section 23 of the Act. Paromita Dass not being pleased with the quantum of interim monetary relief, so awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, has taken out this application for revision of the order in order to enhance the quantum of award.
(3.) IN C.R.R. 405 of 2008 the O.P. No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of this revisional application taken out by the four petitioners under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. IN C.R.R. 2074 of 2008, Sujoy Dass, the sole opposite party, has challenged the maintainability of the revisional application taken out by his wife, Paromita Dass, under Article 227 of the Constitution of INdia. Although, the grounds challenging the orders impugned passed in two different cases are not similar and have no connection with each other, since the opposite parties in both the revisional applications raised the point of maintainability of both the revisional applications on the same ground that no revision is lies against any order passed under the Act, the matters have been heard together and covered by the instant order.;