The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reliefs granted in the domestic violence proceedings were of civil nature, making the Family Court Appeal challenging the order maintainable.

ORAL ORDER :

R. D. DHANUKA, J. :— This Court by an order dated 3rd December, 2020 directed to place this matter on board for deciding the issue of maintainability raised by the respondent-wife to the extent of challenge to the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the said Domestic Violence Act’) on the ground that Criminal Revision Application is maintainable against that part of the order passed by the Family Court and not this Family Court Appeal filed under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the issue of maintainability of the Family Court Appeal No. 31 of 2020 raised by the respondent are as under :—

2. Respondent had filed a petition for divorce against the appellant on the ground of adultery and cruelty on 16th December, 2013. The said petition was filed under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954. The appellant had filed written statement and also a counter-claim in the said petition and prayed for divorce on the ground of cruelty against the respondent.

3. On 11th February, 2014, the respondent-wife filed the proceedings alleging domestic violence on the part of the appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune. Respondent initially filed a divorce petition bearing P.A. No. 1374 of 2012 on 3rd December, 2012 on the ground of cruelty and adultery. The said petition was however withdrawn on 10th December, 2012. The respondent subsequently filed the second petition bearing P.A. No. 1426 of 2012 on 17th December, 2012 for divorce.

4. The appellant herein filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 4649 of 2015 against the respondent and another in this Court inter-alia praying for transfer of the proceedings pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Cantonment Court, Pune to the Family Court, Pune and for clubbing with petition for divorce filed by the respondent before the Family Court at Pune. By an order dated 6th December, 2018 passed by this Court the said Writ Petition was allowed. This Court noticed that the respondent had also sought necessary reliefs in the form of grant of permanent physical custody of the minor son and also alimony pendente lite at Rs.75,000/- per month under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, apart from the relief of dissolution of marriage under the said Act. The respondent No. 1 had also sought to grant permanent alimony and maintenance to the tune of Rs.2 crores in her favour under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. The respondent had also prayed for grant of interim maintenance and also for payment of damages against the appellant.

5. In the said proceedings filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, the respondent had filed an application under section 12 of the said Domestic Violence Act on 11th February, 2014. The parents of the appellant herein were also impleaded as parties respondent. This Court referred to the prayers in those proceedings filed by the respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. It was contended by the appellant’s advocate before this Court that the principles of section 26 of the said Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is to ensure that any relief available under sections 18 to 22 can be sought in any legal proceedings before a Civil Court, Family Court or a Criminal Court, whether such proceedings were initiated before or after commencement of the said Domestic Violence Act. It was contended that jurisdiction vested in the Family Court is wide enough to consider all the reliefs that have been prayed in the application specifically preferred under section 12 of the said Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

6. In the said order dated 6th September, 2018 passed by this Court, after perusing the application filed by both the parties, this Court observed that there was overlapping of certain reliefs. The reliefs which were sought in the