B. PRAKASH Vs. DEEPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent. The respondent filed M.C. No. 107 of 2008, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchirappalli, claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 19.06.2009, passed an order, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to each respondent herein towards their maintenance. As against the same, the respondents filed Crl.Rc. No. 88 of 2009. By order dated 23.05.2011, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, modified the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month to each respondent herein towards their maintenance. The petitioner claims that he has been paying the said amount without any default. While so, the respondent filed M.C. No. 158 of 2009, on 20.01.2009, under Section 20 r/w Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], claiming various reliefs under the said Act, including monetary relief towards their maintenance. The learned Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 31.01.2012, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the first respondent and a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to the second respondent towards their maintenance. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.A. No. 17 of 2012. The learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, by order dated 31.01.2014, confirmed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, directing the payment of maintenance. The said order is under challenge in this Criminal Revision Case.

(2.) I have heard Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, the learned Amicus Curiae, appointed by this Court to argue the case on behalf of the respondents and perused the records carefully.

(3.) The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a Magistrate, acting under Section 20 of the Act, has got power to grant maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. According to him, Section 125 of the Code and Section 20 of the Act serve two different purposes and orders could be passed under these provisions on two different considerations. These two provisions, according to the learned counsel, are mutually exclusive.