JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Cr. P.C. the order dated 16.06.2016 delivered in Misc. No. 09 of 2016 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamalpur, Unakoti Judicial District, has been called in question. 3. According to Mr. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this order has been passed without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner inasmuch as for single day's absence in the proceeding the petitioner's plea was discarded. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel however, appearing for the respondents has submitted that numerous opportunities were extended to the petitioner. But he did not take that opportunity. As such, the petitioner may not be provided any further opportunity in this case. 4. Be that as it may, what this court finds from the record that the respondent No. 1 is under order by the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur to get maintenance pendente lite @ of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Despite that a further order has been passed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @ of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- to the minor daughter. 5. Thus, the petitioner is under obligation to pay a total sum of Rs. 9,000/- w.e.f. June, 2016 and continue to pay the same maintenance allowance within 7 day of every English calendar month. 6. While passing the order, the concerned magistrate has recorded as under: “In cross-examination of PW-1, a suggestion was put to the effect that in connection with a Restitution of Conjugal Rites case petitioner is getting maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Although the petitioner denied the suggestion, it appears from the version of her mother that to some extent she is being granted maintenance by O/P husband as per the order of the Court In these circumstances it would be ruled out that the petitioner may be provided maintenance” (sic). 7. It is apparent on the face of the record that no inquiry was carried out by the magistrate to ascertain whether the respondent No. 1, the petitioner No. 1 in the Misc. No. 09 of 2016, who was supposed to get Rs. 7. It is apparent on the face of the record that no inquiry was carried out by the magistrate to ascertain whether the respondent No. 1, the petitioner No. 1 in the Misc. No. 09 of 2016, who was supposed to get Rs. 6,000/- per month as the pendente lite maintenance, is getting the said amount regularly or not. 8. If it was found that the respondent No. 1 was receiving Rs. 6,000/- per month as pendente lite maintenance for she was under such order to get the said amount, no further order ought to have been issued by the magistrate. However, the same cannot be deduced in the circumstances. 9. But this Court is again persuaded to observe that the magistrate was under obligation to inquire whether the pendente lite maintenance as stated was also on consideration of the maintenance of the minor daughter or not. When a competent court had passed the order of pendente lite maintenance, how can a Magistrate exercise his jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. as it is not the jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005? 10. Since all these matters have not been inquired into, this Court is inclined to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the said order is set aside subject to that the petitioner herein, shall pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- to the respondent No. 1, the petitioner No. 1 in the Misc. No. 09 of 2016 every month within 7 day of the English calendar and similarly another sum of Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid to the respondent No. 2, the petitioner No. 2 in the proceeding being Misc. No. 09 of 2016 within 7th day of every month, till a fresh decision is taken by the Magistrate. 11. The petitioner shall pay altogether Rs. 9,000/- to the respondent No. 1 within the 7th day of every month. This shall, as observed, continue till the proceeding is terminated on proper consideration. Both the petitioner and the respondents be provided to lay evidence on the aspect whether by an order of pendente lite maintenance the respondent No. 1 was getting the maintenance @ 6,000/- and whether the said order of maintenance covered the maintenance of the respondent No. 2, petitioner No. 2 in the Misc. 09 of 2016. For such purpose the matter is remanded. 12. 09 of 2016. For such purpose the matter is remanded. 12. A fresh decision be taken by the magistrate within the bounds of his jurisdiction. It is expected that the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate shall decide the proceeding preferably within 4 months from the date when he would get a copy of this order. 13. With these observations and directions, this petition stands allowed.