ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. The challenge in this criminal revision case at the instance of the petitioner/appellant is to the order dated 7.6.2018 in Crl.M.P. No. 75/2018 in Crl.A. No. 253/2018 passed by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam refusing to stay all further proceedings in DVC No. 24/2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of Crl.A. No. 253/2018.

2. 1st respondent is the wife and respondents 2 and 3 are the minor children of petitioner/appellant. Respondents filed FCOP No. 1811/2015 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance against the petitioner before the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam. In IA No. 375/2017 the said Court awarded Rs. 4,000/- as interim maintenance vide order dated 6.1.2018. Later, the respondents filed DVC No. 24/2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam wherein in Crl. M.P. No. 3608/2016 the said Court in its order dated 13.3.2018 awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to 1st respondent and Rs. 2,500/- per month each to respondents 2 and 3 from the date of filing of petition till disposal of main case.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/appellant filed Crl.A. No. 253/2018 and in Crl. M.P. No. 75/2018 he sought for stay of further proceedings in DVC No. 24/2015. His grievance is that the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam without considering the fact that the respondents were already awarded Rs. 4,000/- as interim maintenance in FCOP No. 1811/2015, granted interim maintenance in DVC No. 24/2015 and the petitioner due to his financial problems not able to pay double maintenance. He thus prayed to stay all further proceedings in DVC No. 24/2015 till disposal of the criminal appeal. Learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge dismissed the stay application observing that in appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the D.V. Act') read with Section 374 Cr.P.C., the appellate Court is not clothed with the power to suspend the order of the lower Court and such a power to suspend the sentence is available only under Section 389 Cr.P.C., if the appellant was convicted with sentence.

Hence, the criminal revision case.

4. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned Counsel for petitioner, and Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents.

5. Fulminating the order of the lower Court, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that if not staying the further proceedings in DVC No. 24/2015, the lower Court ought to have directed to adjust the maintenance amount paid under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in FCOP No. 1811/2015 to the maintenance awarded in DVC No. 24/2015, as otherwise, the petitioner has to pay the maintenance under both the proceedings to the same respondents which would cause any amount of financial hardship to him. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Vishal, S/o. Rajesaheb Gore v. Sow. Aparna, W/o. Vishal Gore, Criminal Revision Application No. 203/2017.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents would argue that the proceedings under the D.V. Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. are independent to each other and under Section 20 of the D.V. Act the maintenance granted to the aggrieved person can be in addition to the maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the petitioner is not legally entitled to seek for adjusting the maintenance in one case to the maintenance in other case or stay of the proceedings in DVC.

7. The point for consideration is whether the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be adjusted towards the maintenance awarded under D.V. Act in this case?

8. Section 20 of the D.V. Act speaks of monitory relief. It lays down that while disposing of the application under Section 12, the Magistrat