Simultaneous proceedings for maintenance under different enactments are not barred.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner-wife has impugned the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jalgaon, in Petition No.E-329/2019 dated 29.01.2020.

3. The learned Judge refused the maintenance to the petitioner-wife on the sole ground that as the maintenance was already granted to the petitioner under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘PWDV Act’), there is no need to grant maintenance merely because the said petition was filed under different enactment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the view taken by the learned Judge, Family Court refraining the petitioner from filing a petition under another Act is contrary to the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various other courts, including the Bombay High Court. He would argue that there is absolutely no bar to file proceedings simultaneously under the various Enactments for similar relief. He would rely upon the case of Shome Nikhil Danani Vs. Tanya Banon Danani in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).6005/2019 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.07.2019 and RD Vs BD, in M.A.T. APP. (F.C.) 149/2018, decided on 31.07.2019 by the High Court of Delhi. Arguing on the legal point, he would argue that the learned Judge has committed an error of law in rejecting the maintenance application; hence, it is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-husband vehemently argued that the view taken by the learned Judge, Family Court is correct. No husband could be burdened to pay the maintenance under different enactments. The learned Judge has correctly relied upon the case laws discussed in the impugned order. That apart, the maintenance granted to the petitioner-wife under the PWDV Act was sufficient. The learned Magistrate granting the maintenance to the petitioner under the PWDV Act has considered the income source of the respondent. The petitioner resided with the respondent for 45 days only. In the absence of evidence, the learned Judge erroneously recorded the finding that the respondent-husband has refused and neglected to maintain her. That finding also needs to be set aside. The petitioner is getting sufficient maintenance from the respondent. It is nothing but an unnecessary exercise and a waste of time for the Court to deal with the same issue. The case laws relied upon by the petitioner did not apply to the case in hand as distinguishable on facts. He prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The following points arise for the determination of this Court and finding thereon are recorded for reasons to follow :

7. Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed the proceedings against the respondent-husband under the provisions of PWDV Act, 2005 and under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings. The application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed after getting an order of maintenance under PWDV Act. The learned Magistrate considering the facts and law has rejected the application.

8. The object of PWDV Act is to provide for effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The very purpose of including the Domestic Violence Act was to provide for a remedy which is an amalgamation of the civil rights of the complainant i.e. the aggrieved person. The intention was to protect the women from violence of any kind, especially that occurring within the family, as the civil law does not trust this enactment in its entirety. The purpose of including the