SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 29.03.2017, whereby the Trial Court has adjourned sine die the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) filed by the petitioner seeking maintenance on the premise that two parallel proceedings, i.e. proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.V.Act’) seeking maintenance would not lie. The petitioner was given liberty to seek revival of the proceedings in case maintenance issue was not sought for in the Domestic Violence proceedings. This order was passed, relying on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Renu Mittal versus Anil Mittal & Others, 2010 (119) DRJ 306.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no embargo on two Courts parallelly considering the issue of maintenance. It is contended that the ambit of proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act are much wider than mere award of maintenance, however once the order of maintenance is passed either by the Court exercising power under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or by the Cou