JUDGMENT Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - The petitioner Prasanta Hazra married the Opposite Party No.1 Ranju Hazra in the year 2005. According to Ranju a sum of Rupees fifty thousand was given in cash as dowry apart from golden ornaments weighing about five Bhories and other utensils. Soon after her marriage Ranju was subjected to physical and mental torture by her in-laws. Ranju left her matrimonial home and stated residing with her parents. She lodged a complaint with the prescribed authority being the Protection Officer within the meaning of Section 8 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 2005). The Protection Officer caused an enquiry and submitted a report to the learned Magistrate. As per the report of the Protection Officer, Ranju was subjected to physical and mental torture. The Protection Officer stated in his report that Ranju was not provided with adequate food at her matrimonial home. She was kept in starvation. She was administered poison and assaulted mercilessly. The articles given in marriage were also taken away by her in-laws. Prasanta appeared before the learned Magistrate and submitted his written objection. He denied the allegation of torture and claimed that Ranju deserted her matrimonial home voluntarily. Prasanta also claimed he was drawing a salary of rupees one thousand per month from his employer being a Private Diagnostic Centre. The learned Magistrate upon hearing the rival .contentions and considering the evidence, came to a finding that the certificate of income was issued by Prasanta's uncle being the owner of the Diagnostic Centre and as such there was every room for doubt as to the actual Income of Prasanta. The learned Magistrate ultimately passed an order" directing Payment of maintenance at the rate of rupees eight hundred per month under Section 20(d) on the said Act of 2005. The learned Magistrate also directed payment of rupees six thousand by the husband and rupees five hundred by the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the said order Prasanta and Ram Chandra Hazra approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track. First Court, Burdwan by preferring an appeal under Section 29 of the said Act of 2005. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon considering the evidence on record and the rival contentions came to a finding that the learned Magistrate did not approach the problem In a right direction. First Court, Burdwan by preferring an appeal under Section 29 of the said Act of 2005. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon considering the evidence on record and the rival contentions came to a finding that the learned Magistrate did not approach the problem In a right direction. According the Court of appeal, the learned Magistrate proceeded to consider the complaint of the wife on its face value without considering the point of view of the other side. The learned Judge also observed that the alleged verbal and emotional abuse could not be considered as domestic violence in absence of cogent proof. The learned Judge also observed that the direction with regard to return of stridhan property was highly arbitrary and without application of judicial mind and judicial consideration. The learned Judge also observed that Ranju was not willing to lead family life with the appellant No.1. To be precise, learned Judge rejected each and every finding of the Court below. However, the learned Judge ultimately came to conclusion that Prasanta was obliged to make payment of monthly maintenance as he was bound to maintain his wife. The learned Magistrate allowed the appeal In part, set aside the direction for payment of compensation under Section 22 by the Opposite Party No.2 as well as direction with regard to return of stridhan property. The appellate Court enhanced the amount of maintenance from rupees eight hundred to fifteen hundred to be paid, from the date of filing of the petition coupled with a direction to make payment of the arrear maintenance by monthly installments. 2. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Session Judge. Prasanta approached this Court by filing this instant application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the part of the order that directed payment of monthly maintenance that too, at the enhanced rate of rupees fifteen hundred per month. 3. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. Uttiya Roy, learned counsel contended as follows : (i) Once the Court of Appeal was convinced that the finding of the learned Magistrate was erroneous and devoid of application of judicious mind the direction for payment of maintenance should not have been given. 3. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. Uttiya Roy, learned counsel contended as follows : (i) Once the Court of Appeal was convinced that the finding of the learned Magistrate was erroneous and devoid of application of judicious mind the direction for payment of maintenance should not have been given. (ii) Assuming that the learned Judge was right in directing payment of maintenance the Court below was not entitled to grant relief to the respondent in appeal which she otherwise did not get before the learned Magistrate. (iii) The proceeding initiated at the instance of the Opposite party No.1 was not maintainable in absence of invocation of provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (iv) The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that amount of rupees eight hundred as maintenance was much on the higher side compared to the income of the petitioner. 4. Elaborating his contention, Mr. Roy submitted that the Court below was convinced that the learned Mag1strate did not apply judicious mind to come to a conclusion that the complainant was entitled to any relief. Once the Court below came to such finding there could be no scope for directing payment of maintenance. Mr. Roy further contended that Prasanta was all throughout willing to take her back. Ranju was adamant and was not willing to go back to her matrimonial home and lead a family life along with Prasanta. Hence, there could be no scope for extending maintenance to her. Mr. Roy relied on the provisions of Section 125 (4 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein an unwilling wife was not entitled to any maintenance Mr. Roy also contended that Prasanta was drawing a salary of rupees one thousand per month and it was not possible for him to pay maintenance at the rate of rupees fifteen hundred or rupees eight hundred as the case may be. In support of his contention Mr. Roy relied the following decisions : (i) Gopika Projects Private Limited v. State of West Bengal. 2009 (4) Calcutta High Court Notes 652. (ii) Smt. Soma Mullick v. The State of West Bengal, 2010 (2) Cal. W (Cal) 28. (iii) Samita Saba v. Mohan Saha and Another, 2010 (3) Calcutta High Court Notes (Cal) 820. 5. As and by way of an alternative submission. Mr. 2009 (4) Calcutta High Court Notes 652. (ii) Smt. Soma Mullick v. The State of West Bengal, 2010 (2) Cal. W (Cal) 28. (iii) Samita Saba v. Mohan Saha and Another, 2010 (3) Calcutta High Court Notes (Cal) 820. 5. As and by way of an alternative submission. Mr. Roy contended that assuming the learned Judge was right in extending the benefit of maintenance the Court below was not entitled to put the appellant in a worst position than what he had suffered by the order impugned. In support of his contention Mr. Roy relied on the decision in the case of Banarsi and others v. Ram Phal, 2003 (9) SCC 606 . 6. Opposing the application Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 contended as follows: (i) The Act of 2005 had wide scope to extend relief to the tortured victim in a case of domestic violence and Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not operate as a bar in extending monetary relief to the victim under the provisions of the said Act of 2005. (ii) The Protection Officer submitted report before the learned Magistrate justifying the complaint filed by Ranju. Hence the learned Magistrate was right in relying on the same in absence of any specific challenge to the said report or any attempt to have it quashed. (iii) Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, inter alia empowers the Court to try an offence under the said Act following the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence there was no irregularity in the proceeding as erroneously contended by the petition. (iv) The claim of the Prasanta that he was earning a sum of rupees one thousand per month was far from truth and no reliance could be placed on the salary certificate that was issued by his uncle who was obviously interested to support Prasanta. 7. Mr. Chattopadhyay while elaborating his contentions submitted that the marriage took place in 2005. Soon after the marriage Ranju was subjected to physical and mental torture. She was thus entitled to lodge a complaint with the Prescribed Authority being the Protection Officer appointed under Section 8 of the said Act of 2005. The Protection Officer was-obliged to carry on an investigation and submit a report to the learned Magistrate which he did. Soon after the marriage Ranju was subjected to physical and mental torture. She was thus entitled to lodge a complaint with the Prescribed Authority being the Protection Officer appointed under Section 8 of the said Act of 2005. The Protection Officer was-obliged to carry on an investigation and submit a report to the learned Magistrate which he did. The learned Magistrate gave ample opportunity to the Opposite Parties to Counter act the said allegations and ultimately came to conclusion that the c1aim of Ranju was justified as it was supported by a report from an independent authority. Hence the Court of Appeal should not have observed that the learned Magistrate erred in accepting the contention of the wife on its face value. Mr. Chattopadhyay further contended that Ranju was compelled to leave her matrimonial home in view of the torture and as such she was entitled to maintenance. In support of his contention Mr. Chattopadhyay relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Popular Muthiah v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, 2007 (1) Cal. Cri. LR (SC) 25. 8. On the issue of enhancement of the amount Mr. Chattopadhyay in his usual fairness, conceded to the extent that the Court of Appeal was not entitled to enhance the amount. 9. I have considered the rival contentions. Before coming into the case in hand let me discuss the law on the subject. 10. Section 3 of the said Act of 2005 inter alia defined "domestic violence" which included violence to women at he r matrimonial home. Section 3 of the said Act of 2005 has given elaborate scope for tortured victim to claim relief from the competent authority under the said act not only in the case of physical abuse, but also sexual abuse verbal and mental abuse and economic abuse. Section 8 inter alia obliges the Government to appoint Protection Officer who is duty-bound under Section 9 to protect the oppressed class. He is also obliged to initiate proceeding on behalf of the tortured victim before the learned Magistrate if he is otherwise satisfied finding justification in the complaint made by and on behalf of the tortured victim. Section 12 empowers the Protection Officer or the tortured victim to approach the learned Magistrate for appropriate relief. He is also obliged to initiate proceeding on behalf of the tortured victim before the learned Magistrate if he is otherwise satisfied finding justification in the complaint made by and on behalf of the tortured victim. Section 12 empowers the Protection Officer or the tortured victim to approach the learned Magistrate for appropriate relief. Section 20 provides for monetary relief to be given to the victim by the Magistrate on an application made under Section 12. The learned Magistrate also has power to award compensation under Section 22 and interim relief under Section 23. Section 29 provides for appeal from the order of the learned Magistrate before the Court Session: 11. In the instant case, Ranju approached the Protection Officer appointed under Section 8. The Protection Officer submitted his report and prayed for extension of necessary relief to the victim. The learned Magistrate, in my view, did not commit any error in relying in the said report in absence of a specific challenge to the same being backed by cogent reasons. It might be true that the victim was unwilling to go back to her matrimonial home. The learned Judge of the Court of Appeal failed to appreciate that in our traditional Indian Society a lady soon after her marriage would hardly leave her matrimonial home for uncertainty and particularly when she had no other means of livelihood. This would obviously lead to an irresistible conclusion that she was otherwise" compelled to leave her matrimonial home and such compulsion would obviously come due to abuse. The abuse may be physical or mental or economic or otherwise. However, I refrain from making any further comment on the same in absence of a challenge to such finding. The Court of Appeal ultimately upheld the maintenance. However, it was not right in enhancing the same in absence of a specific challenge to the order of the Magistrate, to such extent Mr: Roy was correct. Mr. Chattopadhpay in this context contended that the victim. although unhappy with the amount, could not challenge the same' as she had no means. Hence, in my view, the Court below should not have enhanced the amount. 12. Mr. Chattopadhpay in this context contended that the victim. although unhappy with the amount, could not challenge the same' as she had no means. Hence, in my view, the Court below should not have enhanced the amount. 12. In the case of Samita Saba (supra) the learned single Judge of this Court considered a situation where the wife deserted the husband and the husband was compelled to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Magistrate Act. The wife was also earning by giving tuition to her music students. During evidence her allegation that she was subjected to physical torture, did not find corroboration. Considering such fact, the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for maintenance the learned single Judge of this Court upheld the same following the provisions of Section 125 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This decision has no application in the instant case. Here¸ the lady had no means of livelihood she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home alleging physical and mental abuse. Such complain found justification by the Protection Officer under the said Act 2005. 13. In the case of Smt. Soma Mullick (supra) the learned single Judge of this Court observed that there was absolutely no material so as to establish that the wife had any sufficient reason to live separately. The learned Judge observed that she had refused to live with her husband. without any justifiable reason. This decision also has no application in the present factual scenario. 14. Coming back to the Question of upholding the award of maintenance. I am of the view that the provision of Section 482 is absolutely discretionary remedy. It is inherent power of the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Fact of this case would not deserve applying such inherent power and I refuse to exercise my discretion in interfering with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge upholding the maintenance. 15. The revisional application succeeds in part. The order of the learned Additional Session Judge is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance would be the same as directed by the learned Magistrate being rupees eight hundred per month. 15. The revisional application succeeds in part. The order of the learned Additional Session Judge is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance would be the same as directed by the learned Magistrate being rupees eight hundred per month. The other part of the order of the Additional learned Session Judge is affirmed. 16. C.R.R. No.2264 of 2010 is disposed of accordingly. 17. This order would however not preclude the respondent opposite party No.1 from applying for enhancement of the amount before the learned Magistrate in an appropriate proceeding being backed up by cogent and appropriate materials before the learned Magistrate. Urgent Xerox certified copy will be given to the parties. if applied for. Petition disposed of