S.G. SHAH, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Y.J. Patel for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. N.L. Jain for the respondents No.2 and 3 and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent State being a formal party. Since the dispute is under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, between the applicant husband with his wife being respondent No.2 herein and his daughter being respondent No.3 herein. Perused the record.

2. The applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 11.12.2015 by Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate (Court No.13), Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.295 of 2011 wherein on application by respondent No.2 wife under the Domestice Violence Act, the trial Court has directed the applicant to pay the amount of Rs.10, 000/- towards maintenance of his wife and daughter w.e.f. 19.11.2011 being the date of application while rejecting all other prayers by the wife.

3. The applicant has also challenged the judgment and order dated 10.3.2017 by Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, Court No.20 in Criminal Appeal Nos.5 of 2016 and 15 of 2016; being cross appeals preferred by both husband and wife against the above judgment and order dated 11.12.2015 by the trial Court; wherein the Sessions Court has dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the order of the trial Court, thereby, refused to enhance the amount of maintenance or to even modify it or to reject the request for maintenance by the wife.

4. The grievance of the applicant herein is to the effect that though there is no application by respondent No.3, the daughter, namely, Ruchika, who is now major, the trial Court has awarded maintenance for her also. The applicant has also contended that in fact, both the courts below have failed to consider that there was mental cruelty against him by his wife and that though there was no proof regarding Domestic Violence Act, and that wife has not prayed protection against domestic violence, there cannot be a straitjacket order of maintenance in absence of domestic violence. It is also contended that the marriage span was of 18 years and when there was no complaint for 18 years, wife should have examined her parents. It is submitted that the trial Court has also failed to consider that wife is serving as a Professor and having handsome income and daughter is now major and trial Court has refused to accept and failed to consider the I.T. Returns and that though respondent wife is serving and though it is called for, neither she has produced the same nor has called upon any witness to prove the relevant documents to verify her earnings and that in fact she has taken a huge loan of Rs.14 Lacs and she is paying installments of such loan to the bank, just to show that she has no income. It is also contended that though there is an order of Rs.6,000/- towards maintenance in favour of the wife u/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, both the courts have failed to consider such factual details and even if it is stated that such amount of maintenance is pending trial, the fact remains that for the period when such order is in force, the applicant is liable to pay only higher amount of maintenance amongst two orders and not both the amounts.

5. I have gone through the impugned judgments and orders. Unfortunately, the trial Court has when rejected all other prayers, including protection against domestic violence, and when there is prima-facie evidence on record that respondent wife is serving as a Professor, it seems that trial Court has not considered the available material and facts on record in proper perspective. It is quite clear and obvious that though trial Court is empowered to award maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as the children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance u/s.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for time being in force, while disposing an application u/s.12(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, s