1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 249 OF 2010 Kamlesh S/o Ramesh Naik ..APPLICANT. - VERSUS - Shubhangi W/o Kamlesh Naik ..RESPONDENT Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for applicant Mr. D.P. Bakshi, Advocate for respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 4th October, 2010 PER COURT : 1 This Criminal Revision Application is moved to challenge the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad, dated 27th August, 2010, in Criminal Appeal No. 144/2010. The applicant-husband was the appellant and his appeal filed under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act was dismissed. The facts leading to the impugned order are as under: The respondent-wife initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Henceforth to be referred to as `the Act’) against the applicant- husband Kamlesh, in the month of March, 2010, bearing case No. 305/2010. She sought various reliefs against the applicant- husband viz; (i) Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance under Section 20 (1) (d) of the Act, (ii) Protection from violence under Section 18 (d) and (f) of the Act, (iii) The applicant-husband be directed to make arrangement of separate residence under Section 2 19 (1) (f) of the Act, (iv) The applicant-husband be directed to return the respondent-wife's Stridhan articles under Sections 19 (1) (c) of the Act, (v) the applicant-husband be directed to pay back Rs. 2,72,794/- spent by the applicant-wife and her parents on wedding expenses, (vi) the applicant be directed to pay Rs. 3 Lacs as compensation under Section 22 of the Act. 2. During pendency of this application, the applicant / husband filed an application on 8th June, 2010 seeking order for calling report from the Protection Officer, appointed under the Act, before passing further order on the respondent’s application. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, rejected the application saying that calling of report from the Protection Officer is not mandatory. The applicant / husband’s appeal against this order also failed. One of the reasons, why the appeal failed, is the fact that soon after the application on 8th June, 2010 was made, the report was called and was received. In view of this, the objection raised by the applicant-husband through his application dated 8th June, 2010 has become infructuous and this application is also become infructuous. Obviously the learned Magistrate would take into account the report of the Protection Officer as contemplated by the provisions of the Act while deciding the application. In view of above, this revision stands disposed of as infructuous. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] gas/crira249.10/ok