Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Tanushree & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
A.S. Moorthy – Respondent
Crl. Rev.P. 314 of 2017
Decided On : 07-02-2018
Maintenance - Proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Section 12 of the D.V.Act - Section 20 of the D.V.Act - [Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Section 12 of the D.V.Act, Section 20 of the D.V.Act] - The court discussed the interplay between proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Section 12 of the D.V.Act, emphasizing that the two proceedings are independent of each other and have different scopes, though there is an overlap. The court highlighted that the pendency of proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act does not act as an embargo for consideration of an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and that both proceedings can continue simultaneously. It also emphasized that the mere fact that two proceedings are initiated by a party does not imply that one of the two has to be adjourned sine die. The court referred to Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V.Act, which specifies that a court considering an application under Section 12 of the D.V.Act should take into account an order of maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or any other law in force. The judgment in Renu Mittal was discussed, and it was clarified that its holding did not apply to the facts of the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The Trial Court adjourned sine die the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner seeking maintenance, on the premise that two parallel proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Section 12 of the D.V.Act seeking maintenance would not lie. The petitioner was given liberty to seek revival of the proceedings if maintenance issue was not sought for in the Domestic Violence proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court erred in adjourning sine die the Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings and not appreciating that unless there is a determination of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the order does not become relevant for the determination of maintenance under Section 12 of the D.V.Act. The impugned order was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the application in accordance with law.
Issues: The main issue was whether two parallel proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Section 12 of the D.V.Act seeking maintenance would lie, and whether the Trial Court erred in adjourning the Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings sine die.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the pendency of proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act does not act as an embargo for consideration of an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and both proceedings can continue simultaneously. It emphasized that the mere fact that two proceedings are initiated by a party does not imply that one of the two has to be adjourned sine die. The court also referred to Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V.Act, which specifies that a court considering an application under Section 12 of the D.V.Act should take into account an order of maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or any other law in force.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the application in accordance with law. The application of the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was directed to be listed before the concerned Trial Court for directions, and the Trial Court was further directed to expedite the hearing of the application.
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 Court under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the other Court is to take into account the said order and appropriately pass an order. Learned counsel further submits that there is misapplication of the ratio in Renu Mittal (supra).
3. Section 20 of the D.V.Act lays down as under:-
“20. Monetary reliefs.—(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include but is not limited to—
(a) the loss of earnings
(b) the medical expenses
(c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and
(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force……………”
4. Reading of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V.Act, shows that a Court, which is considering an application under Section 12 of the D.V.Act, would take into account an order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or any other law, for the time being, in force.
5. Reading of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V.Act further shows that the two proceedings are independent of each other and have different scope, though there is an overlap. Insofar as the overlap is concerned, law has catered for that eventuality and laid down that at the time of consideration of an application for grant of maintenance under Section 12 of the D.V.Act, the maintenance fixed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be taken into account.
6. Pendency of proceedings under section 12 of the D.V.Act do not act as an embargo for consideration of an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. Rather, it implies that both the proceedings can continue simultaneously. It is only when there is a determination of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C., that the order would become a relevant factor to be taken into account by the court considering grant of maintenance under section 12 of the D.V.Act.
7. The mere fact that two proceedings are initiated by a party; one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and another under Section 12 of the Act does not imply that one of the two has to be adjourned sine die, as has been done in the present case. The Trial Court has erred in adjourning sine die the 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings and not appreciating that unless there is a determination of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C., the order does not become relevant for the determination of maintenance under Section 12 of the D.V.Act.
8. It may also be noticed that the proceedings under th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
