The main legal point established in the judgment is the supplementary nature of maintenance provisions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to other laws, and the importance of considering the best interest of the children in custody matters.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sistani, J.

The present appeal arises out of an interim order dated 18.04.2018 passed by the Family Court whereby two applications filed by the appellant-wife; one under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'HMA') seeking maintenance for herself and the second application under Section 26 of HMA seeking custody of the two minor children have been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case to be noticed for the disposal of the present appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.02.2006 at Delhi. Two children were born out of the said wedlock, who are aged about 9 years and 11 years respectively. The parties are living separately since the year 2015. On 04.02.2017, a petition under Section 9 of HMA was filed by the appellant-wife before Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights which is pending.

3. The appellant-wife is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Family Court on two grounds; firstly the application filed by her seeking maintenance under Section 24 of HMA has been rejected on the ground that the maintenance has already been fixed @ Rs. 2000/- per month in the proceedings initiated by the appellant-wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'DV Act'). Secondly; the custody of the children was declined to the respondent-wife and submits that the custody of the minor children should be given to the appellant-wife which is necessary for the proper growth of the children including physical as well as mental development, and thus, the counsel prays the impugned order be set aside.

4. Ms. Susmita Mahal, learned counsel for the appellant-wife submits that the Court in proceedings arising out of the DV Act has only granted interim maintenance and she is unable to sustain herself with a meager sum of Rs. 2, 000/- per month.

5. Mr. Trilok Chand, learned counsel for the respondent-husband has opposed this appeal on the ground that the appellant-wife is a housewife and totally dependent upon the respondent-husband for her day to day needs and thus, she is not in a position to bring up her children in view of her poor financial condition. The counsel prays that the impugned order is a well reasoned order and there is no infirmity in it.

6. Vide order dated 12.11.2018, we had appointed Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar as amicus curiae in the matter to assist this Court on the question as to whether maintenance can be awarded in other proceedings once the interim maintenance has already been granted under proceedings arising out of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or DV Act.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. We may note that the Family Court has rejected the application filed by the appellant-wife under Section 24 of HMA solely on the ground that maintenance of Rs. 2, 000/- per month already stands fixed in the proceedings arising out of the DV Act. The Family Court while deciding the application has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Rachna Kathuria Vs. Ramesh Kathuria, 2010 SCCOnLineDel 2929 and Renu Mittal Vs. Anil Mittal and Ors., 2010 SCCOnLineDel 3390, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') and the DV Act are parallel proceedings for seeking interim maintenance and once interim maintenance has been granted in one of such proceeding, the same cannot be re-agitated in the other proceedings.

8. The first issue which arises for our consideration is as to whether maintenance can be awarded in other proceedings once the interim maintenance has already been granted under proceedings arising out of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or DV Act.

9. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to extract Section 20 of DV Act which reads as under:

"20. Monetary reliefs:

(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of sect