ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. The revision has been filed by the applicant-wife against the order dated 12.8.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod District Balod (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2020 under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short “the Act 2005”).

3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod (CG) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 51/2012. In the said Misc. Criminal Case, vide order dated 5.2.2013, learned Additional Principal Judge has granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the applicant and it was also directed that the said amount shall be increased @ 10% per annum in the month of January. Thereafter, the applicant has filed an application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod vide Misc. Criminal Case No. 322/2014, whereby, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod, District Balod (CG) vide order dated 26.2.2020 partly allowed the petition and directed the respondent-husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to the applicant. Being aggrieved with the said order, the respondent-husband filed Criminal Appeal No. 17/2020, whereby, the Appellate Court has modified the order dated 26.2.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod to the extent that the monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/- granted to the applicant be adjusted to the maintenance amount already awarded to her earlier under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondent is working as Block Education Officer in the Education Department and earning Rs. 40,000/- per month. The appellant-wife has preferred an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-. However, vide order dated 15.2.2013, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- and also directed that the said amount be increased @ 10% per annum in the month of January. Thereafter, on an application filed under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 by the applicant, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, after taking into consideration all the facts pleaded by the applicant, granted her monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/-. However, the Appellate Court adversely considered such facts and passed the impugned order and therefore, it deserves to be set-aside. Further, considering the income of the respondent, he prays for suitable enhancement of the maintenance amount.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority. He submits that the wife is residing in the same building where the husband resides. The husband is regularly paying the monthly maintenance to the wife. He submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class did not pass any specific order with regard to the payment of the maintenance amount in addition to the amount already awarded earlier. As such, a specific order was required to be passed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324. He would further submit that the out of the wedlock of the applicant and the respondent, a daughter is born, who is residing with the respondent, and at present pursuing her studies in college and has attained the age of marriage. Hence, considering the obligations of the respondent, no enhancement is justified. He prays for dismissal of the revision.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In Rajnesh (supra), it has been settled that if in a previous proceeding, an amount is awarded towards maintenance, in the subsequent proceeding filed, the payment awarded in the earlier proceeding must be taken note of and such amount is adjustable in the maintenance amount awarded under the different enactments. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class though vide order da