IMPORTANT POINT:
Parameters for granting maintenance under the aforesaid Act are altogether different then the parameters of granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this revision petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dated 17.1.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in criminal case No.59/2013 by which the trial Court allowed the maintenance of Rs.7,000 to the non-petitioners wife and daughter of the petitioner in the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said order is further upheld by the Addl. Sessions Judge, No.1, Sriganganagar vide order dated 5.5.2014. In this revision petition both the above orders are under challenge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court in which the order has already been made inspite of that, the respondent No.2 is not living with him. Further, it is submitted that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C was also filed by the respondent No.2, which is yet to be decided by the trial Court, therefore, in these circumstances, the orders of granting maintenance may kindly be quashed.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Chandu (Smt.) & Ors. v. Shobha Lal, 2013(1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 511 in which it has been held that the petitioner wife not complied the decree and living separately without justification, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Kamlesh (Smt.) and Rajendra Singh, 2012(4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 2138 in which the same preposition of law was decided.

5. In view of above, it is submitted that when the respondent wife is not making compliance of the order passed by the family Court upon the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and living separately, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is special law having over riding effect upon the general law, therefore, whatsoever order has been made for granting interim maintenance by the trial Court is not required to be interfered with at this stage because final adjudication is yet to be made by the trial Court. It is also pointed out that both the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable upon this case because in those cases, the proceedings were initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and in this case, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is still pending, therefore, no case is made out for interference.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all, it is required to be observed that the petitioner is challenging the order of interim maintenance and final adjudication is yet to be made by the trial Court upon the complaint made by the respondent wife under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The aforesaid Act is a special Act promulgated by the Parliament for protection of women of weaker section of the society, therefore, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case because the Parameters for granting maintenance under the aforesaid Act are altogether different then the parameters of granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

8. In view of above, I see no reason to interfere in the both the orders impugned. Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the application itself within a period of six months.

Revision dismissed.

**********