SATISH RAI Vs. AARTI RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been preferred assailing the order dtd. 29/4/2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Criminal Appeal No.6/2015. Vide the said order, the court below has modified the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, dtd. 9/9/2014 passed in Criminal Case No.49/2013 and have ordered for payment of maintenance of Rs.5000.00 to the respondent, in addition to the amount of Rs.5000.00 which she was already getting as maintenance under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Act, 2005).

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that since the applicants are already paying regularly an amount of Rs.5000.00 per month as maintenance to the respondent for two children born from the wedlock of applicant No.1 and respondent vide the order of the Lok Adalat dtd. 20/1/2013, subsequent application under Sec. 12 of the Act, 2005 would not be maintainable. He further submits that the respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance under the different provisions of law. The respondent could only have availed the remedy of claiming maintenance either under Sec. 125 CrPC or under the Act, 2005. Thus, prayed for quashment of order dtd. 29/4/2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. He relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Santosh Kumar Agrawal (Kasturiya) Vs. Smt. Sarita Goyal (Agrawal) and Others, Criminal Revision No.735 of 2016, decided on 20/10/2016. He also relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Renu Mittal Vs. Anil Mittal and Ors., CRL.R.P. No. 633 of 2010, decided on 27/9/2010.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that it is a case where two forums have been provided under the different statutes and that there is no prohibition under the two laws for claiming maintenance under each of the Act. According to respondent, the case under the Act, 2005 is separately conducted before a different forum and the considerations on the said complaint are entirely different, whereas, application Sec. 125 CrPC is filed before a different forum under a different provisions of law and where the consideration is entirely different as compared to the Act, 2005. Therefore, the two orders would be sustainable in the eyes of law and as such order impugned does not warrant any interference.