A wife can claim maintenance under different statutes, but she is obligated to disclose the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding while seeking maintenance in a subsequent proceeding.

ORDER :

1. This revision is filed challenging the order dated 6th April 2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court Manendragarh, District-Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 11/2022 whereby learned Family Court has allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by non-applicant/wife and awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month in favour.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed absolutely on false ground. He further contended that non-applicant/wife herself deserted the applicant and therefore, the applicant has filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “Hindu Marriage Act”) seeking divorce on the said ground which ultimately was allowed on 25.01.2023. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as also proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “Domestic Violence Act”) is filed by the non-applicant/wife only after issuance of notice in divorce proceedings which shows that intention of non-applicant/wife. He further submits that applicant is pressing this revision petition on the ground that respondent -wife even if entitled for maintenance cannot seek maintenance in two different proceedings, one under the Domestic Violence Act and another under proceedings of 125 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention he places reliance of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Except this, no other ground is raised by the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that argument of learned counsel for the applicant to challenge the order passed by the Family Court in proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is not correct. He submits that there is no bar for the wife to claim maintenance under the to different statutes. He further contended that order of maintenance passed under Domestic Violence Act is only an interim order passed by the learned Magistrate. The proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act is pending consideration for its final adjudication. There is no merit in this petition and therefore the petition may be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also persued the documents annexed along with this revision petition.

5. Perusal of the record would show that the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the applicant was allowed and the applicant was granted decree of divorce by learned Family Court on 25.01.2023. It is in this fact of the case that this Court is considering the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that whether the non-applicant is not entitled for the maintenance under two different statutes. This issue came up for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra). Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-60 of the judgment considered this issue and held thus:

“60. 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.”

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment has clearly observed that to overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction