Heard Sri S.R. Sanku, learned Counsel for .the petitioner, Sri H. Prahalad Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who entered appearance for the first respondent, and Sri P. Thirumal Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

2. In DVC No.4 of 2007, the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, passed an order on 15.9.2008 at the instance of the Protection Officer, representing respondents 2 and 3 herein, against the petitioner herein directing payment of Rs.l,500/- per month before 20th of every month towards maintenance under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act; 2005.

3. Merits apart, the petitioner is questioning the said order on the ground that the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, already passed an order, dated 17.7.2008 in MP No.33 of 2008 in MC No.157 of 2007 directing payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively to the respondents 2 and 3 herein from the date of filing of the said petition for grant of interim maintenance and therefore, the burden for payment of maintenance cannot be duplicated against him.

4. In these proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a restricted and limited scope and which cannot be converted into a detailed fact finding enquiry, it will be unsafe, if not, unjust, to go into the factual basis on which either the Additional Family Court or the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam directed payment of maintenance to the respondents 2 and 3 respectively or the justification for the quantum fixed. It is suffice to observe that either order does not suffer from any fundamental infim1ity warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

5. However, it has to be noted that what has been awarded in MP No.33 of 2008 in MC No.157 of 2007 is only interim maintenance, subject to the ultimate orders in MC No.157 of 2007 and MC No.157 of 2007 still appears to be pending, which has to be detem1ined on merits in accordance with law, between the parties in future. Therefore, setting aside the subsequent order in the Domestic Violence Case, may create complications resulting in multiplicity of proceedings and avoidable inconvenience to the respondents 2 and 3.

6. A reference to Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may resolve the question in issue pointing out the manner in which such duplication of orders granting maintenance can be reconciled. Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the Magistrate, acting under Section 125 Cr.P.C., to cancel or vary any maintenance order in consequence of any decision of a competent civil Court. Similarly, sub-section (4) thereof also mandates that a civil Court shall take into account, the sum awarded or paid as monthly maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while making any decree for recovery of maintenance by any person. The statutory policy, therefore, is to avoid any duplication as is also evident from Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 read with Section 36 thereof. The said Act is only in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law already in force and subsection (2) of Section 26 specifies that any relief under sub-section (1) thereof may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek before a civil or criminal Court. Therefore, it would be suffice to clarify that the maintenance awarded in the Domestic Violence Case need not be separately paid in addition to the maintenance awarded in MP No.33 of 2008 in MC No.157 of 2007 and so long as, both or either order, are in force, the petitioner will be liable to pay the monthly maintenance at Rs.1,500/- per month to the second respondent, while the maintenance payable to the third respondent shall be as per the order in MP No.33 of 2008 in MC No.157 of 2007 so long as the said orders are in force.

7.