JUDGMENT

(Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2010: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 16.09.2013 made in M.C.No.2 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Vellore and allow the above Criminal Revision.

Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.387 of 2014: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore in M.C.No.38 of 2006, dated 13.10.2009 and allow the above Criminal Revision case by enhancing the maintenance.)

1. In a conflict between the husband/Mr.Venkatesan and the wife/Tmt.Vimal, two revision cases are laid before this Court.

2. Crl.R.C.No.387 of 2014 is filed by the husband/Mr.Venkatesan as against the order dated 16.09.2013 of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore in M.C.No.2 of 2008, thereby, granting the reliefs of (a) return of 15 sovereigns of Jewels and Rs.25,000/- belonging to the petitioner and (b) to pay a monthly maintenance being a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner.

3. Crl.R.C.No.603 of 2010 is filed before this Court aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance ordered by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, by the petitioner/wife in M.C.No.38 of 2006 which is filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby, the Learned Magistrate has fixed a sum of Rs.2,000/- and praying for enhancement of the said sum of Rs.2,000/-.

4. Heard Mr.Prabharan, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the husband and Mr. V. Sai Ram, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the wife.

5. As far as Crl.R.C.No.387 of 2014 is concerned, the primary contention of the counsel for the husband is two fold.

(i) Firstly, the Trial Court while awarding the maintenance and directing return of the Stridhana articles, omitted to consider that he has already filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2004 for the relief of divorce, which was granted in his favour. However, in H.M.C.M.A.No.17 of 2012 filed by the wife, the same was reveresed, against which, the husband has preferred a petition in C.M.S.A.No.51 of 2013, which is pending for disposal. Therefore, the Learned Magistrate ought not to have granted the relief of return of Stridhana articles. This apart, the wife had also filed a petition in M.C.No.38 of 2006 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and therefore, the monthly maintenance ought not to have awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

(ii) As far as the first contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that CMSA.No.51 of 2013 has been dismissed by this Court on 11.04.2018, thereby, holding in favour of the wife and dismissing his petition for divorce and therefore, the said ground no longer exists. The second ground alleged is that when the maintenance case is filed by the wife, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., maintenance cannot be claimed under Section 25 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. According to me, this ground is without any substance, in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021 2 SCC 324), whereby the Supreme Court has categorically held that simultaneously or successively the wife can claim maintenance, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or other enacments. However, the Court which passes the order later in point of time have to take it into account, the amount awarded in the earlier proceedings. Therefore, the Learned Magistrate while passing order in M.C.No.02 of 2008, which is subsequent in point of time ought to have taken into account, the earlier sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded as maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

6. In view of the above, and in view of the directions issued in the later portion of this judgment, the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also rejected.

7. Coming to the grievance of the wife that