1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. This petition challenges the order dated 16/01/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.54/2016 thereby upsetting the order dated 08/02/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in Misc. Cri. Case No.414/2012 granting maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the petitioner under Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'D.V. Act').

3. The admitted facts of the case are that application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act was filed in the year 2012 and that the Family Court had already granted, by passing an order on 11/01/2013, interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner, which was later on by final order enhanced to Rs.7,000/- per month. The final order of maintenance was passed by the Family Court on 02/04/2016, and this order not having been challenged by the respondent has attained finality.

4. The power to grant maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act conferred upon the Magistrate is in the nature of monetary relief and is directly related to suffering of the losses by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence. Therefore, unless it is shown that the aggrieved person and/or her child has suffered such a loss, no order of maintenance can be passed under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act. In a given case, the aggrieved person has in her hand an order of maintenance granted in her favour under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force, still, maintenance can be granted to the aggrieved person or a child or both by invoking power under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act. But, in such a case, the order of maintenance to be granted would be in addition to the maintenance already granted to the aggrieved person or a child under the other law and that in order to be entitled to receive such additional maintenance, the aggrieved person or a child would have to establish that subsequent to the order of maintenance passed under the other law, there were fresh circumstances amounting to domestic violence leading to suffering of loss by her or her child. If no such circumstances are pleaded and proved, the power of granting maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act cannot be exercised by the Magistrate in such a case. This is also the view taken by the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Koushik s/o Anil Gharami vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors., reported in 2014 All MR(Cri) 2398, when he observed in paragraph 9 thus :

“It is thus, clear that the monetary relief is available for the children of the aggrieved person if the monetary relief is required to meet the expenses incurred by the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence. The monetary relief is also permissible in case losses are suffered by the aggrieved person, as a result of the domestic violence. The monetary relief is available to children of the aggrieved person under Section 20 of the Act. However, the aggrieved person is under obligation to establish that she had to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered due to domestic violence on the part of the respondent. In the present case, since the learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the domestic violence could not be proved and since that finding of the learned Magistrate has not been challenged by the aggrieved person, if follows that no relief could have been given to respondent Nos.2 and 3 also.”

5. In another case, which was the case of B. Prakash vs. Deepa & Anr., reported in 2016 All MR(Cri)168, learned Single Judge of Madras High Court taking the same view, has held that the maintenance which could be granted under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act is in the nature of mandatory relief and such mandatory relief cannot be granted unless two conditions are fulfilled i.e. sufferance of domestic violence by th