JUDGMENT :

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) :

1. The question as to whether maintenance allowance awarded to the wife/opposite party is adjustable with the monetary relief granted to her under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is the subject matter of adjudication in the instant criminal revision. The present petitioner is the husband of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 filed an application under Section 12 read with Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter described as the said Act) praying for monetary relief. The learned court below granted interim relief monetary at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner/husband to the opposite party No.1/wife under Section 23 of the said Act.

2. The present petitioner filed an application on 6th July, 2018 in the 3rd Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Contai praying for adjustment of order of interim monetary relief passed in Misc (DV Case No.7 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Contai with the final order of maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month passed in Misc Case No.204/2014 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the application on twofold grounds, viz, interim monetary relief granted in favour of the wife/opposite party No.1 cannot be adjusted with final order of maintenance passed in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the scope of both the above mentioned statute and the relief granted under them are distinct and different. The present petitioner has filed an appeal against the above mentioned order dated 10th July, 2018 under Section 29 of the said Act. The said appeal, though registered as Criminal Revision No.36 of 2018 was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast track, 2nd Court by a judgment dated 19th January, 2019. The aforesaid revision/appeal was dismissed on contest.

4. The instant revision has been filed by the husband/petitioner challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 19th January, 2019 passed in Criminal Revision/Appeal No.36 of 2018.

5. In Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 it is observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as hereunder:-

“It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.”

6. Therefore Hon’ble Supreme Court in unequivocal terms has observed that adjacent of maintenance allowance granted in a previous proceeding is permissible in a subsequent proceeding filing ev