The DV Act does not preclude an applicant from claiming interim maintenance for the same period in separate proceedings, and the grant of maintenance in one proceeding should be considered while awarding maintenance in the other.

JUDGMENT :

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

[Hearing held through video conferencing]

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition impugning an order dated 04.07.2019 (hereafter 'the impugned order') passed by the learned Family Court, Karkardooma, whereby the petitioner's application for interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC) was rejected.

2. A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner's application was rejected on the sole ground that the petitioners had been granted interim maintenance of ` 4,000/- per month in proceedings filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The Court held that since the petitioners had been awarded interim maintenance for the same period and no appeal had been preferred against the said interim order, an application under Section 125 Cr.PC for seeking interim maintenance for the same period was not maintainable. The Court referred to the decisions of this Court in Renu Mittal v. Anil Mittal: Crl. Rev. P. 633/2010, decided on 27.09.2010 and Rachna Kathuria v. Ramesh Kathuria: Crl. (M) Petition No. 130/2010, decided on 30.08.2010 in support of the said proposition. The Court held that it was not open for the petitioners to claim maintenance from two different courts in different proceedings for the same period. And, in the event the petitioners were of the view that the amount of interim maintenance granted was insufficient, the appropriate remedy would be to approach the concerned court for modification or enhancement of the interim maintenance.

3. None appears for the respondent despite notice.

4. Dr Amit George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the aforesaid reasoning is erroneous and the decisions relied upon by the learned Family Court are no longer good law.

5. In view of the above, the only question to be addressed is whether it is open for the petitioners to maintain an application under Section 125 Cr.PC after having secured interim maintenance by an order passed in proceedings under the DV Act.

6. The controversy in the present case arises in the following context:

6.1 The petitioner no. 1 is a estranged wife of respondent and petitioner no. 2 is their minor son. The petitioners had initially filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act which was registered as CC No. 229/2017 before the learned MM (Mahila Court), Karkardooma. The petitioners had also filed accompanying application seeking interim maintenance till the disposal of the said petition.

6.2 The aforesaid application for interim maintenance was allowed by the learned MM (Mahila Court) and, by an order dated 23.10.2018, the respondent was directed to pay ad interim maintenance of ` 4,000/- per month. The said interim order was subsequently confirmed by an order dated 10.12.2018.

6.3 On 15.11.2018, the petitioners filed an application under Section 125 Cr.PC which was registered as MT No. 1307/2018. The said application was rejected by the impugned order.

7. There is merit in Dr George's contention that the grounds on which the learned Family Court had rejected the application is erroneous. The question whether an application for interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC could be maintained for the same period for which interim maintenance has been awarded under the DV Act, is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in R.D. v. B.D.: (DB) has held that an order for interim maintenance granted under the DV Act does not preclude an applicant to claim interim maintenance for the same period in separate proceedings. The earlier decisions in Renu Mittal v. Anil Mittal: and Rachna Kathuria v. Ramesh Kathuria: relied upon by the learned Family Court, were expressly overruled in R.D. v. B.D. (supra). The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:

"15. A careful perusal of Section 20 of DV Act shows that it provides maintenance to the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, which would be in addition to