MD BASIT Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the criminal petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order since identical issues have been raised in both the criminal petitions. Besides this, in both the cases the order of a Judicial Magistrate, taking cognizance of a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 Mustt. Wahida Begum under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (briefly the "D.V. Act"), has been assailed. After taking cognizance of the complaint, notices have been issued to the respondents in the said case to show cause as to why the interim maintenance allowance shall not be granted to the complainant. Heard Mr. Pran Bora as well as Shri S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioners and the complainant/respondent No. 2 was represented by Shri T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel.

(2.) IT may also be mentioned here that the order dated 02.09.2010, passed by the learned JMFC, Tinsukia in Misc. Case No. 08/DV of 2010, whereby cognizance of the complaint has been taken, was challenged by one of the respondents before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No. 32(3) of 2010. The said appeal has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2010. In this way, the Crl. Petition No. 60 of 2011 has been filed after dismissal of the statutory appeal. Since there is no provision to challenge the appellate order, the Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Sections 401/397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the narration of facts are not necessary to dispose of the criminal petitions, prudence demands that some salient features of the case may be briefly noted, which are as follows :