Heard.

Rule returnable forthwith.

2. Concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner for allowance under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, DV Act), awarding allowance @ Rs.3,000/- to the respondent No.2-wife and Rs.2,000/- each to the children, i.e. Respondent Nos.2 to 5, is questioned.

3. The matrimonial relations between the couple having married before 13 years of issuing notice dated 10.08.2009, and birth of the children from such wedlock, is not in controversy.

4. Mr. Choudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, read the notice and reply dated 17.8.2009, sent by Respondent No.1 to canvass that the petitioner, as a humble husband, was ready to cohabit with his wife, however, she did not join the company.

Learned Counsel has raised doubts about award of maintenance in terms of Section 12 or Section 20 (d) of the DV Act, as according to him, when there is a specific provision under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. for maintenance, there could not be such allowance by the court. Evidence and the findings were also read.

5. Mr. Salve, learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that Respondent Nos.2 and 3, by virtue of efflux of time