Pankaj Bhandari, J.

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 24.03.2017 passed by Judge Family Court No.1, Jaipur (Raj.) whereby, the petitioner was directed to pay 40% salary to the non-petitioner and additional Rs. 50,000/- were directed to be paid in lump sum. It was further directed that after fixation of pay 40% of arrear also be paid to the non-petitioner.

2. The factual matrix of the case are that non-petitioner earlier to application under Domestic Violence Act filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 in the year, 2006 which was dismissed as the non-petitioner was employed and maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month was given to the daughter in terms of the compromise arrived at in Lok Adalat between the parties on 21.07.2007. The non-petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on 23.09.2009, wherein, the Court below awarded 60% of the gross salary as maintenance. The order passed by the Domestic Violence Court was challenged before the Sessions Court which upheld the order passed by the trial Court. In appeal preferred by the petitioner, the amount was reduced by the High Court to 40% of the gross salary as maintenance to the non-petitioner from the date of the order. The Court in addition mentioned that while doing so proper care to be taken to statutory deduction made from the salary apart from other aspects. Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the respondent stood dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 13.07.2015. In a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, 1973 the Court has awarded 40% of the basic salary as maintenance.

3. It is contended that the dispute pertaining to the maintenance payable to the wife was settled by the High Court and affirmed by the Apex Court and in accordance with the order 40% of the gross salary after statutory deduction is being deducted from the salary of the petitioner and is being credited in the account of the respondent. It is also contended that there was no occasion for the Family Court to have awarded 40% of the gross salary from the date of the filing of the application i.e. 23.07.2008. It is also contended that there was no occasion for awarding lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- as the Court is not competent to award any lump sum amount under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 It is also contended that the Court below has further committed perversity in directing that the amount received by the non-petitioner would be adjustable with the amount awarded under Domestic Violence Act.

4. It is contended that the code does not make any provision for adjusting the amount payable under the provision of other acts. It is also contended that there was no justification for awarding the amount from the date of filing of the application and the Court below has not mentioned any reason for awarding amount from the date of filing of the application.

5. Counsels for the non-petitioner have opposed the revision petition. Their contention is that the provisions of Domestic Violence Act are in addition to and not in derogation to the other law and there is no bar under Cr.P.C. that if an order is passed under the Domestic Violence Act, a wife cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973.

6. It is contended that the order passed by the Court below is in conformity with the order passed by the High Court as the Court has mentioned that the same is in consonance with the orders passed by the Apex Court. It is also contended that the non petitioner was on temporary employment and when she was terminated, she moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 and as the non-petitioner remained unemploymed, the Court was justified in directing payment of arrear from 23.07.2008. It is also contended that the petitioner has not complied with the orders of the High Court and the non-petitioner had to apply to the Court and obtain the order for deduction from salary.

7. It is further contended that t