Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

Petitioner impugns order dated 26.09.2018 whereby the appellate court set aside order dated 06.04.2018 and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the application under section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the DV Act), afresh.

2. Application under section 23 of the DV Act was filed by the Respondent-wife inter-alia seeking monetary relief under section 20, residence orders under section 19(f) and prevention of alienation of assets under section 18(e) of the DV Act.

3. By order dated 06.04.2018 the application under section 23 was dismissed. The Trial Court rejected the monetary relief claimed by the Respondent on the ground that she had already been granted maintenance of Rs 1,20,000/- per month under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the family court. Further the Trial Court observed that the rent to be paid by the Respondent had been considered by the family court while deciding the quantum of maintenance thus she was not entitled to relief under section 19 of the DV Act. In so far as the prayer for preventing alienation of assets was concerned the Trial Court declined the same holding that whether the Respondent-wife had a share holding in the company was a matter of trial and said relief could not be granted to her.

4. Petitioner and Respondent were married on 28.06.2014. Respondent left her matrimonial home on 28.05.2015 allegedly on account of being physically and mentally tortured. The parties have been living separately ever since.

5. Respondent-Wife filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein by order dated 23.01.2017 interim maintenance was granted to her from the date of filing of the petition.

6. Respondent-Wife thereafter filed a petition under the DV Act inter alia seeking a right of residence. By order dated 06.04.2018, the Trial Court declined to grant monetary relief and also declined to pass any order for residence on the ground that the DV Act did not contemplate restoration of possession but provided for alternate accommodation to be provided to the wife and the Respondent - wife had agreed to be compensated by payment of rental for alternative accommodation. The court further noticed that in the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., Respondent-wife had made a claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month towards rental and taking the same into account, the court under section 125 Cr.P.C., had awarded interim maintenance at Rs. 1,20,000/, thus she was not entitled to any order for residence or rental for alternative accommodation.

7. By the impugned order the appellate court held that the trial court had not considered the judgements of the Supreme Court as well as this court wherein it had been laid down that both Cr.P.C. and DV Act provided concurrent jurisdiction and the relief under section 12 of the DV Act was in addition to any relief which could be granted by any court of law in any forum. Noticing the fact that the trial court had not considered the law as laid down, the appellate court remitted the matter to the trial court to reconsider the relief sought for by the respondent.

8. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that the appellate court has erred in remanding the matter to the trial court to decide the application under section 23 in view of the fact that the Respondent had already been granted interim maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. and enhancement if any could only be sought before the same court and a second application for interim maintenance would not lie before another forum.

9. Reliance is placed on the decision of a coordinate bench of this court in Rachna Kathuria vs Ramesh Kathuria, (2010) 173 DLT 289.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Respondent-wife suffered domestic violence and thus was entitled to monetary relief under the DV Act. Further it is submitted that the respondent had not only sought relief under section 20 but also prayed for residence ord