Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010057772024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./325/2024 NABA KUMAR GOSWAMI S/O LATE BHOGESWAR GOSWAMI, R/O KOCHPARA, P.O.-MIRZA, P.S.- PALASHBARI, DIST-KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN CODE-781125 VERSUS MRS. RUMI DEVI W/O SRI NABA KUMAR GOSWAMI, D/O SRI BHARAT SARMA, P/R/A RAIBARI, BAMUNPARA, P.O. AND P.S.-PALASHBARI, DIST- KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781015 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K SARMAH, MS. A TALUKDAR,MR. U K GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : MR A K AHMED, MS P KAKATI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 09.04.2025 Heard Mr. D K Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class No. 2, Kamrup at Amingaon in D.V. Case No. 86/2022. Page No.# 2/2 3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Magistrate held that since there is a prima facie case under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2012”), the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay an interim maintenance of ₹3,000/- to the aggrieved person. 4. Mr. Sarmah has pointed out that Section 12 of the Act of 2012 prescribes, that before passing such an order, the learned Magistrate has to consider a report from a protection officer or a service provider. 5. Mr. Ahmed has referred to Section 23 of the Act of 2012. According to Mr. Ahmed, the court of the learned Magistrate can grant interim maintenance without considering any report from a protection officer or a service provider as contemplated u/s 5 of the Act of 2012. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 7. Section 23 of the Act of 2012 speaks about the satisfaction of the Magistrate regarding the existence of a prima facie case. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner to be applicable, the learned Magistrate should have called for a report from a protection officer or a service provider. After considering such report, the order for granting maintenance should have been passed. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class No. 2, Kamrup at Amingaon in D.V. Case No. 86/2022 is bad in law and stands set aside. 9. The matter is remanded to the trial court for deciding afresh. With the aforesaid direction, the criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant