: Disclosure of previous maintenance proceedings is mandatory in subsequent proceedings for maintenance under different enactments to avoid conflicting orders.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard finally with consent of both the sides at admission stage.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of interim maintenance granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule under the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.V. Act’ for the sake of convenience) in Criminal M.A. No. 689/2019 dated 08.01.2020 and interim maintenance granted by the Judge, Family Court, Dhule in Petition E No.111/2019 dated 27.01.2020.

3. Heard Mr Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr V.C. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

4. Mr Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1/wife has filed various proceedings in different courts and succeeded in getting favourable orders of interim maintenance. The learned J.M.F.C., Dhule in proceedings under the D.V. Act in Criminal M.A. No. 689/2019 was pleased to grant interim maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month each to the wife, son and daughter (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) vide order dated 08.01.2020. The wife/respondent No.1 filed petition E No. E-111/2019 before the Judge, Family Court, Dhule under section 125 of Cr.PC and succeeded in getting order of interim maintenance vide order dated 27.01.2020. The learned Judge, Family Court, Dhule was pleased to grant interim maintenance to the wife/respondent No.1 @ Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 4,000/- p.m. each to the son and daughter (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) respectively, total interim maintenance amount of Rs.13,000/- per month.

5. The wife filed one more proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for conjugal rights vide Petition A No. 128/2019 in Family Court, Dhule and prayed for interim maintenance under section 24 of the said Act. The petitioner has brought the fact of granting of earlier maintenance by two different courts to the notice of the Judge, Family Court, Dhule when that application for interim maintenance came to be dismissed, but costs of Rs.8,000/- unnecessarily imposed on the petitioner though he was not at fault.

6. Mr Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that because of passing of two different orders for interim maintenance in two different proceedings, the petitioner cannot afford to pay interim maintenance to the wife and children total @ Rs.16,000/- per month. He submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay reasonable interim maintenance to his wife and his children. If wife goes on in filing various proceedings before different courts and succeeds in obtaining favourable orders of interim maintenance which are overlapping, it would be practically impossible to pay such huge amount of interim maintenance. He submitted that wife is also doing sari business and earning good income. That fact is not considered while granting interim maintenance by both the courts. He submitted that in view of the landmark decision in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in AIR 2021 SC 569, if order of maintenance is passed by way of overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments, it is mandatory for the wife to disclose previous maintenance proceedings and orders passed therein in subsequent proceedings. The court may take into consideration maintenance already awarded in previous proceedings and grant adjustment or set-off of said amount in subsequent proceedings.

7. By taking help of the above said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (supra), the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr Chetan Jadhav prayed to quash and set aside both the orders of interim maintenance passed by the respective courts.

8. Per contra, Mr V.C. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders of interim maintenance passed by the two different courts. He submitted that the petitioner/husband is doing m