1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. With consent of learned counsel for both the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.

3. This Writ Petition is preferred by the Respondent challenging the order of interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month each to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as awarded by the Family Court No.1, Pune on 15/02/2017 in P. E. No. 227 of 2013 filed under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

4. The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that as per undisputed facts on record, Respondent No.1, the wife has filed Criminal M.A. No.0402677 of 2012 under Section 12(xii) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act), in which she has also filed an application for interim maintenance. The said application was decided on 03/01/2014 and as per the order passed therein by the Magistrate, Respondent-wife was granted Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance for herself and Rs.2,000/- per month for the son. She has also been awarded the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent. Thus, totally she was awarded the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. She has however not disclosed the said fact in her application for interim maintenance filed before the Family Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. The said order was brought to the notice of the Family Court by the Petitioner herein. Thereafter also, Respondent No.1 has not amended the petition or the application for interim maintenance for making out a primafacie case that she requires the addition amount of maintenance. It is urged that despite these facts, the Family Court has awarded the additional sum of Rs.2,000/- per month each to Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

5. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as per the Maharashtra Amendment empowers the Magistrate to pass an order of interim maintenance, only if the prima-facie ground is made out, that wife is not able to maintain herself. Here in the case, according to him, no such prima-facie ground was made out as Respondent No.1 was already getting the interim maintenance as per the order passed under D.V. Act. She has not even averred that the said amount is not sufficient and in such situation, according to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Family Court has committed an error in awarding the amount of Rs.2,000/- per month each as interim maintenance to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in addition to the interim maintenance awarded under the D.V. Proceeding. In his submission, if the provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. does not empower the Family Court to pass such order of interim maintenance unless the primafacie ground is made out. Thus the impugned order passed by the Family Court being without jurisdiction needs to be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondents has supported the impugned order by pointing out that Respondent No.1 has filed the application for interim maintenance in the D.V. Proceeding on 21/10/2013, whereas this application for interim maintenance was filed on 23/09/2013. Hence when Respondent No.1 has filed application for interim maintenance, in this proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. there was no such order passed in D.V. Proceeding as the said order was passed only on 03/01/2014. Therefore, there was no question of disclosing the said order in her application filed in the Family Court. Secondly, it is submitted that the order in D.V. Proceedings was passed on 03/01/2014, whereas in this proceedings before the Family Court, the order is passed on 15/02/2017. Hence, there was definitely change in circumstances, entitling the Respondent No.1 to get additional amount of interim maintenance. Thirdly, it is pointed out that the Petitioner is getting substantial income from the Computer business and the agriculture land. The Family Court has considered the said income and thereafter awarded the sum of Rs.2,000/- only per month each to Respondents. According to learned couns