The court established the principle that previous maintenance orders in overlapping jurisdictions must be considered in subsequent proceedings and emphasized the need to adjust the amount of maintenance awarded in previous proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for rival parties.

2. By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 8/9/2016 passed by the court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.2500.00 per month to the Respondent - wife from the date of application and also to pay an amount of Rs.8000.00 to the Respondent - wife towards overall expenses of the proceedings. The Petitioner has also challenged the order dtd. 7/3/2018 passed below the application (Exh.19) filed by the Petitioner, wherein he had prayed that an earlier order passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patur towards interim maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought to have been taken into consideration while passing impugned order dtd. 8/9/2016. According to the Petitioner, earlier order passed by the learned Magistrate ought to have been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order, and therefore, interference is warranted in the present Petition.

3. While issuing notice on 4/5/2018, this Court granted stay to the direction to pay Rs.2500.00 per month, subject to the Petitioner continuing to pay amount of Rs.3000.00 per month as directed by the learned Magistrate and also subject to paying amount of Rs.8000.00 to the Respondent - wife towards expenses as directed in the impugned order dtd. 8/9/2016, passed below Exhibit-11.

4. Mr. Ghuge, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that when the impugned order dtd. 8/9/2016 was passed by the court below, earlier order dtd. 24/6/2016 passed by the learned Magistrate could not be brought to the notice of the court. It is for this reason that the application (Exh.19) was moved, but the same was rejected by the impugned order dtd. 7/3/2018. It is submitted that perusal of the impugned order dtd. 7/3/2018 would show that the court below rejected the application by relying upon the Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3791/2016 (Prakash Babulal Dangi V/s State of Maharashtra and Another). The learned Counsel emphasised upon the fact that the said Judgment of this Court was subsequently stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dtd. 10/1/2018 in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) Nos.10280-10281/2017.

5. It was further submitted that the question as to whether orders claiming maintenance passed under different statutes having overlapping jurisdiction are to be taken into consideration or not is no more res integra, because in the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh V/s Neha and Another, (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324 it has specifically held that earlier orders of maintenance passed in overlapping jurisdictions have to be taken into consideration, so that appropriate orders can be passed subsequently, concerning the question of granting interim maintenance/maintenance. On this basis, it is submitted that in the present case, the Writ Petition may be allowed.

6. Per contra, Mr. Bhise, the learned Counsel for Respondent - wife submitted that considering the meagre amounts granted by the Magistrate as well as the court below, it would be appropriate not to interfere with the impugned order. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Jain V/s Akanksha Jain , (2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 801. it is contended that the quantum of maintenance would include the expenses being incurred by the Respondent - wife in attending the legal proceedings initiated by the Petitioner - husband, particularly because, the Respondent is required to travel from another place to the place where the legal proceedings have been initiated by the Petitioner - husband. On this basis, it was submitted that Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Considered rival contentions and perused the documents placed on record.

8. The learned Counsel for Petitioner is justified in contending that the questi