JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. By means of this petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C, the judgment dated 02.07.2016 delivered in Criminal Appeal no. 33 of 2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.5, West Tripura, Agartala has been called in question inasmuch as by the said judgment, the order dated 05.04.2016 delivered in Misc. 1327 of 2015 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Court no.4, Agartala, West Tripura has been affirmed. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of the Women from the Domestic Violence Act. The respondent also filed a Special Petition under Section 23 of the said Act seeking ad-interim relief for defraying the expenses of the ailing daughter of the petitioner and the respondent No.1, who was born on 21.03.2009 from their wedlock. Since, the petitioner for alleged inconducive matrimonial situation could not stay with the petitioner insisted by filing an petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for maintenance. Accordingly, the said maintenance was provided at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month. But as the respondent found it difficult to defray the medical expenses of their daughter, who was suffering from blood cancer, she approached the Magistrate for passing an appropriate order so that the petitioner herein, can be asked to bear the medical expenses. 4. By the order dated 05.04.2016, the Magistrate passed the following order: “As such the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner towards the expenditure of treatment of the minor daughter. Regarding the announcement of monthly maintenance from Rs.9000/- to Rs.30,000/- as claimed by the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that any such higher amount of maintenance was ever demanded by the petitioner from the respondent and he refused to accede the demand. As such I find no ground to enhance the amount of monthly maintenance”. 5. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the court of the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala being Criminal Appeal no. 33 of 2016. As such I find no ground to enhance the amount of monthly maintenance”. 5. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the court of the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala being Criminal Appeal no. 33 of 2016. In the course of time, the said appeal was transferred to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.5, West Tripura, Agartala for hearing in accordance with law. Finally by the judgment dated 02.07.2016, the said appeal was dismissed holding inter alia that: “It is admitted fact respondent no. 1 is the legally married wife and respondent no. 2 is the daughter of the appellant. It is also admitted fact that the appellant is an Asstt. Professor in the College under the Higher Education Department of Tripura and that the respondent no. 1 has no means to maintain herself as well as her daughter. It is also admitted fact that the respondents are living separate from the appellant and respondent no. 2 has been suffering from blood cancer. No one can deny that in the treatment of blood cancer a huge expenditure is involved. It is also admitted fact that the treatment of the respondent no. 2 is being carried at CMC, Vellore. The respondents already travelled thrice to CMC, Vellore for treatment of respondent no.2. It is true that a consensus order was passed on 18.8.2015 by learned Court below and in terms of the said order the appellant paid Rs.60,000/- to the present respondent no. 1 for the treatment of respondent no. 2 and it was ordered that the respondent no. 1 would co-operate with the appellant to get the reimbursement of the expenditure in connection with the treatment. The issue which raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent no. 1 did not filled up the reimbursement bill form in time and also that they did not take referral for second and third time when they went to CMC Vellore for treatment are all technical question. The issue which raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent no. 1 did not filled up the reimbursement bill form in time and also that they did not take referral for second and third time when they went to CMC Vellore for treatment are all technical question. The respondent no.1 is not a government employee and as such she is not supposed to know all the formalities regarding reimbursement to fill up the reimbursement bill form and also the requirement of taking referral for every visit to the hospital outside the State when the treatment was admittedly not completed. They have visited the CMC, Vellore as per advice of the doctor of the said hospital and it was not a pleasure trip for respondents. There is nothing in the record that the appellant being a biological father took any step for the treatment of his daughter rather he left all the responsibilities on the shoulder of the respondent no.1. It is his obligation and duty to make treatment of his daughter i.e. respondent no.2 . It cannot be a question that the appellant would carry the treatment if he gets the reimbursement of the treatment expenditure since he is entitled to get reimbursement. It was the duty to guide the respondent no. 1 to take the referral from the authority for treatment of his daughter and also to fill up the reimbursement bill form by himself as he is to get the reimbursement. So, I am of the opinion that he was also negligent to get the referral from Health department/concerned hospital to go to CMC, Vellore and also to fill up the reimbursement bill form in time by giving necessary guideline to the respondent no.1”. Having observed thus, the Additional Sessions Judge, has observed that there was no irregularity or illegality in the order dated 05.04.2016. 6. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has referred to the order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the Magistrate in Misc. 1327 of 2015, where it has been observed as under: “ On consensus of both the parties and without going into the merit of this case ld. Counsel for the respondent agreed to pay Rs.60,000/- so that the aggrieved person can carry her daughter’s treatment at Vellor in the month of September, 2015. Ld. 1327 of 2015, where it has been observed as under: “ On consensus of both the parties and without going into the merit of this case ld. Counsel for the respondent agreed to pay Rs.60,000/- so that the aggrieved person can carry her daughter’s treatment at Vellor in the month of September, 2015. Ld. Counsel for the respondent laid one condition that the aggrieved person will cooperate the respondent to get the medical expenditure reimbursed in favour of the respondent by his authority which requires the requisite form to be filled up properly and certified by the concern medical officer”. 7. According to Mr. Majumder, even within the prescribed limit of time, as per the Central Medical Attendance Rules, 1965, the respondent did not supply the requisite original cash memos of the expenditure along with the prescribed format attested by the concerned Medical Officer of the hospital and as such when belatedly he submitted the bill for medical reimbursement, that was not accepted by the authority. It is to be mentioned here that the petitioner is an Assistant Professor working in the Department of Mathematic, Dasharath Deb Memorial College, Khowai, Tripura and was under the medical reimbursement establishment, as per the said Rules. Therefore, there is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to medical reimbursement for his wife, daughter and the dependant parents. But according to the petitioner, the petitioner could not get the earlier expenditure reimbursed for totally irresponsible act of the respondent herein. Now, again the petitioner is apprehensive of recurrence of the same conduct by the respondent No.1. All these aspects have been revisited by the Additional Sessions Judge while considering the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. 8. This court as well does not find any infirmity in the impugned order but at the same time is of the opinion that the respondent No.1 shall ensure that the petitioner can reimburse the medical bills against the expenditure made by the respondent No.1 for treatment of their daughter, who is suffering from a terminal illness. As a matter of abundant precaution, the petitioner shall forward the prescribed format to the respondent No.1 when he would be paying the money, as directed by the Magistrate. It would be the obligation of the respondent No.1 here in to complete all the formalities while the last treatment will be availed by in a spell. As a matter of abundant precaution, the petitioner shall forward the prescribed format to the respondent No.1 when he would be paying the money, as directed by the Magistrate. It would be the obligation of the respondent No.1 here in to complete all the formalities while the last treatment will be availed by in a spell. Within one month from the day of last treatment the respondent No.1 shall forward the prescribed format along with all original prescriptions, cash memos, hospital certificates etc. and the prescribed format having duly been certified by the competent authority in the certificate where the daughter would take treatment. It is made clear that if there is any deviation, the respondent No.1 may lose her maintenance for committing dereliction and causing financial damage to the petitioner. 9. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of with no interference with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. However, the directions contained in the judgment shall strictly be followed by the respondent. 10. This petition is disposed of accordingly. Send down the LCRs.