Proceedings under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are different legal remedies, which can be separately issued and sought within the realm of law by the parties.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. PC, for the following prayer :

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed this misc. petition may kindly be allowed by quashing the criminal proceedings Original No. 182/17 under section 125 Cr. P.C., (Payal Vs. Rana Ram) pending in Family Court No.l, Jodhpur and Domestic Case No.226/17 (Payal Vs. Rana Ram) pending in Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jodhpur. "

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent entered in wedlock on 14.5.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of their marriage a daughter was born on 14.2.2013. Due to strained relationship a divorce petition was filed on 25.9.2012, in which an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent, that came to be allowed on 16.10.2014 whereby certain interim maintenance was granted. The respondent thereafter filed another petition U/s.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 28.7.2017 alongwith an application U/s.23 of the Act for grant of monetary relief. The respondent then filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C., on 06.12.2017, which has now been allowed and a maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month has been granted.

3. The bone of contention in the present case is "whether simultaneous proceedings under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act; U/s.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125 Cr. P.C., would operate ?"

4. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain judgments to submit that if the facts are the same, then simultaneous proceedings in Domestic Violence Act and under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will not be permissible, reference whereof is as under :- Hon'ble Madras High Court in S. Suriya Devi Vs. Thilip Kumar (Crl. O.P. Nos.27507 & 10089 of 2017 and Crl. M.P. Nos.6680 & 6681 of 2017); Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs. Asha Kumari & Anr., passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3658 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (c) No.6301 of 2017); judgment of Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in B. Prakash Vs. Deepa & Anr. In Crl. RC. (MD) No.453 of 2014; Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (Special Criminal Application No.2080 of 2010); judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Renu Mittal Vs. Anil Mittal & Ors., (Crl. R.P. No.633 of 2010, Crl.M.A. No.154451/2010); Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rachna Kathuria Vs. Ramesh Kathuria (Crl.M.C. No.130/2010 & Crl. M.A. No.504/2010); judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar Vs. Mrs. Shaila Ravindra Karamkar reported in 1992 Cri. LJ 1845; judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) in Ganesha Ram Vs. Jamuna Bai & Anr., reported in 2012(3) R.Cr.D 164 (Raj.); judgment of Hon' ble Madras High Court in B. Prakash Vs. Deepa (CRL. RC. (MD) No.453 of 2014 and M.P. No.l of 2014.

5. Counsel for the respondent refuted the submissions and submitted that there is separate legislative intention of the provisions of Section 125 Cr. P.C. as well as Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and, therefore, both the proceedings can run concurrently. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shome Nikhil Danani Vs. Tanya Banon Danani (in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6005/2019). In this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the view of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in coming to the conclusion that mere passing of an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not preclude the respondent from seeking appropriate reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The order reads as follows :-

"Having heard Ms Geeta Luthra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Ms Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court of Delhi was justified in coming to the conclusion that the mere passing of an order under Se