The court emphasized the obligation of the aggrieved person to inform the court of relief obtained in other proceedings and considered the just and reasonable nature of the order under the D.V. Act, 2005.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Maulik Shelat for the applicants and learned APP for the respondent-State.

2. Challenge in this revision application is given to the judgment and order below Ex.5 dated 26.04.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jam-Khambhaliya in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6 of 2019, reaffirmed by the judgment and order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the District and Session Court, Devbhumi-Dwarka in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2022.

3. Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Courts below have committed jurisdictional error by not giving setoff, to adjust amount of maintenance already granted to the respondent no. 2-wife in her application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

3.1 Advocate Mr. Shelat submitted that the learned Courts below have materially erred in not considering the already awarded maintenance of Rs.5,500/- in favour of the original applicant and further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has erroneously observed that the applicants can file application under Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (For short D.V. Act), since Mr. Shelat submitted that it cannot be adopted as there is no change in circumstances after passing of the order by learned trial Court.

3.2 Advocate Mr. Shelat submitted that Section 25 of the D.V. Act speaks of an order under Section 18 of the D.V. Act, which is not impugned.

3.3 Advocate Mr. Shelat has referred to the decisions in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Sudeep Chaudhary vs. Radha Chaudhary, AIR 1999 SC 536 and submitted that the applicant’s wife had not disclosed the maintenance amount granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and willful suppression has led to travesty of the justice, since the very act of the claimant itself would disentitle the applicant’s wife to claim any interim maintenance amount.

3.4 In the case of Sudeep (supra), the appellate Court has observed that the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance was adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings and it has been further observed that the claims of the husband and wife are to be balanced. While in the case of Rajnesh (supra), it has been observed that the remedy of the maintenance in both secular laws and personal laws may not be overlapping and simultaneous operation of statutes would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting order. Thus, in the case of Rajnesh (supra) certain guidelines have been framed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, laying down the uniform and consistent standard and for ensuring timely disposal of the applications seeking maintenance under all the applicable statutes. In the said judgment, it has been laid down that though the wife can simultaneously claim maintenance under the different enactments, it would be inequitable to direct the husband to pay the maintenance awarded in each of the said proceedings.

3.5. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the adjustment is permissible and the adjustment can be allowed of the lower amount against the higher amount. The Court, therefore, would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceedings, and grant an adjustment or setoff of the said amount.

4. Advocate Mr. Shelat, having referred to Section 26(3) of the D.V. Act submitted, that in case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than in a proceeding under this Act, she is bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief. On that basis, he submits that no relief ought to have been granted to aggrieved, since she had not disclosed the fact of maintenance amount granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

5. The order, which is impugned is the proceedings, under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

5.1 Section 23 of sub-section (2) lays down that if the Magistrat