The court emphasized the distinction between monetary relief and maintenance under the DV Act and highlighted the relevance of parties' conduct prior to the enactment of the DV Act in passing orders.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set aside the impugned orders dated 07th August, 2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act)-03 CBI, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2015 and the interim maintenance order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 11th February, 2015 under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the DV Act") in Complaint Case No. 20/4/14, wherein the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has granted interim maintenance amounting to Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) in favour of the respondent.

2. The brief facts stated are that, the marriage between the petitioner No. 3 and the respondent was solemnized on 26th August, 2010 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of the wedlock one female child named Alisha was born on 17th February, 2013. Thereafter, on 15th December, 2012 the respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home with her minor daughter and she is completely dependent on her parents. It has been alleged by the respondent that the petitioners had neither taken her back nor made any provision for her maintenance. It has been further alleged that the petitioners have refused the respondent to stay in her matrimonial home and have further refused to hand over the stridhan articles including jewellery to the respondent despite repeated requests.

3. Subsequently, on 18th January, 2014, the respondent filed an application under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioners herein, along with an application under Section 23 (2) of the DV Act in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate after hearing the arguments of both the parties and after considering the complaint, affidavit and other material on record, passed the order dated 11th February, 2015 directing the petitioners herein to pay maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month (including Rs. 6000/- being paid by the petitioner no. 3 towards maintenance of baby Alisha) from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 18.01.2014 and further directed the petitioner No. 3 to clear the arrears by 31st March, 2015 and to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- p.m. towards the rent for the alternate accommodation of the respondent on supplying of documents.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act being Criminal Appeal No. 03/15 before the Court of District and Sessions Judge (PC Act)-03, CBI Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 21st February, 2015.

6. Consequently, the learned Special Judge (PC Act)-03, CBI Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide impugned judgment dated 7th August, 2015 dismissed the aforesaid appeal of the petitioners for want of merit.

Hence, the present petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order dated 11th February, 2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is arbitrary and without any basis and is liable to be set aside.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that maintenance cannot be permitted under Section 23 of the DV Act because as per Section 20 of the DV Act, it provides for interim relief, i.e. the monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered as a result of the domestic violence which is different from maintenance either under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners in order to support his contentions has relied upon the following judgments:

(1) Indra Sarma vs. V.K. Sarma, (2014) 6 SCC (Crl) 593.

(2) Juveria Abdul Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, 2014 (10) SCC 736.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in the