1. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The question which falls for consideration in the present criminal revision application is, whether interim monthly maintenance directed to be paid under Section 23 read with Section 20(1)(d) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be adjusted against the amount of maintenance awarded under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The respondent herein had filed two different proceedings against the present applicant; one under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) and another under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short DV Act). In an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. learned J.M.F.C. has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to respondent no.1 and Rs.2,000/- to respondent no.2 from the date of application. Whereas in the proceeding under DV Act, by way of interim maintenance, the JMFC Court has directed present applicant to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.2.

4. The respondents filed an application seeking recovery of the amount of Rs.61,000/- from the applicant towards arrears of maintenance of the period from 27.08.2014 to 27.08.2015 awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Applicant filed an application in the said execution proceeding praying that, the amount of Rs.33,000/- paid by him by way of interim maintenance under the DV Act shall be adjusted against the said arrears.

5. The learned Judge of the Family Court, Latur vide order dated 02.08.2017, rejected the said application on the ground that the applicant has not challenged the order passed under DV Act and that both the proceedings are independent and hence adjustment as sought by the applicant was not permissible.

6. Shri Halkude, learned Counsel appearing for the revision applicant, assailed the impugned order on various grounds. The learned Counsel, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sudeep Chaudhari Vs. Radha Chaudhari, AIR 1999 SC 536, submitted that though the ratio laid down in the said judgment would squarely apply to the facts of the present case, trial court has erroneously refused to apply the same. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex court has ruled that, ‘the amount awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is adjustable against the amount awarded in matrimonial proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as alimony to wife’.

7. Shri Kasliwal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, opposed the submissions made on behalf of the revision applicant. The learned Counsel submitted that the remedy, as provided under the provisions of the DV Act, is an independent remedy in addition to the provisions under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel read out Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act, and submitted that in view of the clear provision, as aforesaid, in the DV Act, the request made by the revision applicant to adjust the amount of interim maintenance awarded under the provisions of the DV Act, was unsustainable and hence has been rightly rejected by the learned Judge of the Family Court. In order to support his argument, learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.3791/2016 (Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.) with Criminal Writ Petition No.3239/2014 delivered on 10th October, 2017. The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Haresh Narayan Jaguja and Ors. Vs. Namrata Haresh Jaguja and Ors. MANU/GJ/0768/2015.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also perused the impugned order and the other material placed on record by the parties.

9. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., relevant for deciding the controversy in the present mat