JUDGMENT :

P. Rajamanickam, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the petitioners/appellants against the order passed by the Family Court, Tiruchirapalli in I.A. No. 173/2016 in H.M.O.P. No. 35 of 2014, dated 03.10.2018.

2. The respondent herein, who is the husband of the first appellant and father of the second appellant herein, has filed H.M.O.P. No. 227/2010 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli, seeking divorce against the first appellant herein on the ground of cruelty. The said H.M.O.P-was transferred to the Court of Family Judge, Tiruchirapalli and renumbered as H.M.O.P. No. 35 of 2014. During pendency of the said petition, the appellants herein have filed an application in I.A. No. 252 of 2015 under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act r/w Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Sections 20 and 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (23 of 2005) to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the first appellant herein and Rs. 5,000/- to the second appellant herein towards monthly maintenance, education, medical expenses or any other lump sum by way of permanent alimony to the first appellant herein. They also filed another application in I.A. No. 173/2016 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w Sections 20 and 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) (Herein after referred as 'DV Act') to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- to the first appellant herein for her maintenance and medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- to the second appellant herein for his maintenance and educational expenses till orders passed in I.A. No. 252 of 2015.

3. The respondent herein opposed the aforesaid petitions by filing counters.

4. During enquiry in I.A. No. 173 of 2016, on either side, no oral evidence has been adduced. On the side of the petitioners, Exs. P.1 to P.5 were marked as exhibits. On the side of the respondent, Exs. R.1 to R.5 were marked as exhibits.

5. The learned Family Court Judge, Tiruchirapalli, after considering the materials placed before him found that since the petitioners herein have already got an order for maintenance in their favour by invoking the provision under Section 20 of D.V Act in D.V.C. No. 107 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Manila Court, Tiruchirapalli, they are precluded from filing another petition seeking the relief of interim maintenance by invoking the very same provision of Section 20 of D.V Act. Accordingly, he dismissed I.A. No. 173 of 2016 by the order dated 03.10.2018. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

6. Heard Mr. M.P. Senthil, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Mr. S. Jeyavel, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The points for consideration in this civil miscellaneous appeal are as follows:-

i) Whether the petitioners are precluded from seeking interim maintenance by invoking the Provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act r/w Sections 20 and 26 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on the ground that they already got order for payment of maintenance in D.V proceedings i.e., in D.V.C. No. 107 of 2016?

(ii) Whether the learned Family Court Judge was right in dismissing the I.A. No. 173/2016 in H.M.O.P. No. 35/2014?

8. Point Nos. 1 & 2:-

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Family Court Judge erred in dismissing the application for interim maintenance without adverting to the circumstances under which the petitioners have filed the said application. He further submitted that the learned Family Court Judge failed to consider that as per Section 26 of the DV Act, any relief available under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a Civil Court, Family Court or a Criminal Court. He further submitted that the learned Family Court Judge failed to consider that as per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the first appell