will stand independently and, hence, husband will have to pay not
only the maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act,
which was of an interim nature and taking into consideration that
maintenance only, the wife was awarded the maintenance under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. only from the date of the order. It has to be
held that this order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. stands
independently and in addition to the maintenance awarded under
the Domestic Violence Act.
8. It has to be held so in view of Section 20(1)(d) of the Domestic
Violence Act, which clearly provides that, 'in proceedings under the
D.V. Act, the Magistrate may direct the Respondent to pay the
maintenance to the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any,
including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in
force.' Therefore, the power to award maintenance under D.V. Act is
in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
or any other law for the time being in force. Section 36 of the D.V.
Act makes the things further clear by providing that, 'the provisions
of the D.V. Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the
provisions of any other law for the time being in force.' Therefore, it
follows that the amount of maintenance awarded under the D.V. Act
cannot be substituted to the order of maintenance under Section
125 of Cr.P.C.
9. This inference can be further strengthened from the fact that
Criminal Revision Application No.151 of 2016 preferred by the
husband, against the order of interim maintenance passed under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed by this Court vide its order dated
25th July 2016. Perusal of the said order reveals that, in the said
Revision Application also, the husband has specifically raised a
contention that, as he has paid the amount of maintenance, as
awarded under the Domestic Violence Act, he is not liable to pay the
amount of maintenance, as awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In
the said Writ Petition, the husband has also produced the receipt of
payment of the maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence
Act. However, his contention was flatly rejected by this Court and it
was held that, the husband has to comply with the order passed in
the proceedings filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It was further held
that, as the husband has not complied with the order of the Family
Court passed in the proceedings filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.,
he cannot be heard in the matter and his Revision Application,
therefore, was dismissed.
10. Thus, in view of this order dated 25th July 2016 passed by this
Court in Criminal Revision Application No.151 of 2016, there
remains absolutely no scope as to the confusion between the parties
as to which order is to be obeyed. It follows that, as both the orders
are passed by two different Forums in two different proceedings,
both the orders are binding on the Petitioner-husband and
Respondent-wife and they have to comply with both the orders,
unless they are varied or set aside.
11. In view thereof, with these clarifications that both the orders;
the one passed under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and
another passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., are required to be
complied, both these Writ Petitions stand disposed off.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3791 OF 2016
ALONG WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.296 OF 2017
Prakash Babulal Dangi, V The State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : 10TH OCTOBER 2017.
Citation: 2017 SCCONLINE Bom 8897
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by
consent of learned counsel for both the parties.
2. These are two counter Petitions filed by the parties to the
matrimonial proceedings. Writ Petition No.3239 of 2014 is filed by
the wife; whereas, Writ Petition No.3791 of 2016 is filed by the
husband. The only small issue, which appears to be raised by the
parties, pertains to the confusion as to which order is to be followed;
'whether the order of maintenance passed in the proceedings filed
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to be followed, or, whether the order
passed in the proceedings filed under Domestic Violence Act, is to be
followed ?'
3. It is a matter of record, that the wife has filed a Petition,
bearing No.E-253 of 2010, for maintenance under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. and the said Petition, though filed in the year 2010, came to
be decided on 20th January 2016. While allowing the said Petition,
the husband was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per
month to wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to the minor daughter; in
all, Rs.10,000/- per month, from the date of the order.
4. It is also a matter of record, that, meanwhile, the wife has also
filed a Petition, under Domestic Violence Act, bearing C.C.
No.9/DV/2012. In the said Petition, she has filed an application for
interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month for
herself and Rs.15,000/- per month for her daughter. The said
application for interim maintenance filed by wife came to be allowed
partly on 26th July 2012 and husband was directed to pay an
amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per
month to the daughter.
5. When this order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was passed in
Petition, bearing No.E-253 of 2010, the order of interim
maintenance, passed in the application filed in the Petition, under
Domestic Violence Act, bearing C.C. No.9/DV/2012, was brought to
the notice of the said Court. Paragraph No.28 of the order dated 20th
January 2016, passed in the Petition bearing No.E-253 of 2010,
reads as follows :-
“28. It is a matter of record and admitted fact that Petitioner
has filed a case under Domestic Violence Act and there
was an order of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. for
herself and Rs.3,000/- p.m. for her daughter, in all,
Rs.8,000/- p.m. The Petitioner, in her crossexamination,
has admitted that the Respondent is
paying this amount to her. The order was, admittedly,
an interim order.”
6. Thus, after taking into consideration this order, which was
passed in the proceedings filed under Domestic Violence Act,
granting interim maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- per month to the wife
and her daughter, while deciding the proceedings filed under Section
125 of Cr.P.C., the Family Court, Mumbai, has awarded the
maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.4,000/- per
month to the minor daughter. It is clear that, while allowing such
application, the Family Court has not granted maintenance from the
date of application, though the application was filed in the year
2010, but only from the date of the order i.e. 20th January 2016,
having regard to the fact that, in the Domestic Violence Act, wife
was getting the interim maintenance. It is true that, this order
passed by the Family Court in the proceedings filed under Section
125 of Cr.P.C., does not make it clear whether this amount of
Rs.10,000/- per month was to be paid in addition to the interim
maintenance awarded to the wife in the proceedings filed under the
Domestic Violence Act. But, if it was so, that it was not to be paid in
addition but it was substituting, then, the Family Court would have
stated so, specifically. However, the Family Court has not stated that
this order of maintenance passed in the proceedings filed under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. will replace the order passed in the
proceedings filed under the Domestic Violence Act.
7. Now both the proceedings being independent, both the orders
will stand independently and, hence, husband will have to pay not
only the maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act,
which was of an interim nature and taking into consideration that
maintenance only, the wife was awarded the maintenance under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. only from the date of the order. It has to be
held that this order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. stands
independently and in addition to the maintenance awarded under
the Domestic Violence Act.
8. It has to be held so in view of Section 20(1)(d) of the Domestic
Violence Act, which clearly provides that, 'in proceedings under the
D.V. Act, the Magistrate may direct the Respondent to pay the
maintenance to the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any,
including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in
force.' Therefore, the power to award maintenance under D.V. Act is
in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
or any other law for the time being in force. Section 36 of the D.V.
Act makes the things further clear by providing that, 'the provisions
of the D.V. Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the
provisions of any other law for the time being in force.' Therefore, it
follows that the amount of maintenance awarded under the D.V. Act
cannot be substituted to the order of maintenance under Section
125 of Cr.P.C.
9. This inference can be further strengthened from the fact that
Criminal Revision Application No.151 of 2016 preferred by the
husband, against the order of interim maintenance passed under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed by this Court vide its order dated
25th July 2016. Perusal of the said order reveals that, in the said
Revision Application also, the husband has specifically raised a
contention that, as he has paid the amount of maintenance, as
awarded under the Domestic Violence Act, he is not liable to pay the
amount of maintenance, as awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In
the said Writ Petition, the husband has also produced the receipt of
payment of the maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence
Act. However, his contention was flatly rejected by this Court and it
was held that, the husband has to comply with the order passed in
the proceedings filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It was further held
that, as the husband has not complied with the order of the Family
Court passed in the proceedings filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.,
he cannot be heard in the matter and his Revision Application,
therefore, was dismissed.
10. Thus, in view of this order dated 25th July 2016 passed by this
Court in Criminal Revision Application No.151 of 2016, there
remains absolutely no scope as to the confusion between the parties
as to which order is to be obeyed. It follows that, as both the orders
are passed by two different Forums in two different proceedings,
both the orders are binding on the Petitioner-husband and
Respondent-wife and they have to comply with both the orders,
unless they are varied or set aside.
11. In view thereof, with these clarifications that both the orders;
the one passed under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and
another passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., are required to be
complied, both these Writ Petitions stand disposed off.
12. In view of the above, Criminal Application No.296 of 2017,
having become infructuous, stands disposed off.
13. Rule is discharged.
14. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment