There is no bar to seek maintenance under different statutes, and the amount awarded should not overlap and should be inclusive of maintenance under each jurisdiction and not exclusive.

ORDER :

The petitioner/husband is before this Court calling in question order dated 28-09-2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore on I.A. No.V in M.C.No.208 of 2021 granting interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to be paid to his wife/respondent.

2. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The petitioner and the respondent got married on 31-12-2018 and have no children from the wedlock. On 11-12-2020 alleging harassment by the petitioner and his family members the respondent registers a crime in Crime No.32 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 313 and 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, on 22-02-2021, the respondent files a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’ for short) in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.32 of 2021 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodbidri wherein maintenance is also sought in the petition. Considering the interim application seeking maintenance, an order comes to be passed by the concerned Court, granting maintenance to the respondent/wife at Rs.20,000/- per month. Alleging that the order was passed without hearing the husband, the petitioner challenges the said order before the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2021 which comes to be dismissed. Aggrieved by both the proceedings, the petitioner prefers a petition before this Court invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in Criminal Petition No.8186 of 2021 and this Court by its order dated 01-02-2022 grants an interim order of stay of all further proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.32 of 2021 filed invoking the provisions of the DV Act.

3. During the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioner files a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage in M.C.No.208 of 2021. After the respondent entered appearance she sought permanent alimony or maintenance to be granted. The concerned Court answering an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 allows the claim of the wife by granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month from the date of filing the application i.e., 02-09-2021 which shall be inclusive of the maintenance awarded by the concerned Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.32 of 2021, wherein the respondent had invoked the provisions of the DV Act. It is this order that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Heard Sri P.P.Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Anandarama, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the order of the concerned Court directing payment of Rs.30,000/- is contrary to the guidelines issued in the case of RAJNESH v. NEHA – (2021) 2 SCC 324 and also the fact that the wife was already in receipt of an order of maintenance in a proceeding instituted under the DV Act. Therefore, the respondent would not be entitled to dual payment. He would further, on merits of the matter, contend that the petitioner has lost his job on account of pendency of the criminal case that is instituted by the wife and, therefore, the order granting maintenance ought to be interfered with.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent/wife would contend that there is no bar in law for the respondent to seek maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 after having sought maintenance under the DV Act and would contend that the order granting maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not exclusive of the maintenance under the DV Act but is inclusive. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is overlapping jurisdiction or conflicting orders passed or even successive maintenance claimed under different statutes. He would