Simultaneous filing of maintenance cases under different acts is permissible, and the court must consider previous maintenance awards when determining the payable amount.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records in M.C.No.109 of 2016 pending on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records of the proceedings in M.C.No.109 of 2016 pending on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is the only respondent and the first respondent herein, for herself and on behalf of her minor daughter/the second respondent herein has laid the maintenance claim in M.C.No.109 of 2016 and the same is pending on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner married the first respondent on 12.04.1999 in S.K.Mahal at T.V.S.Toll gate, Tiruchirappalli, as per the Islamic rites and customs and that due to their wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter Hamidha Begum/second respondent and a son by name Imran Ali.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been running a chicken stall at Chennai.

5. The first respondent has raised so many allegations and charges against the petitioner, by alleging that she was sent out of the matrimonial home forcibly and she has been residing with her daughter in her parents house, claimed monthly maintenance at Rs.20,000/- each for herself and for her daughter.

6. Pending maintenance case, the husband has come forward with the present petition invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the maintenance case.

7. It is not in dispute that the first respondent has earlier filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C.No.122 of 2016 against the petitioner and his family members and the same was pending on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, and that the petitioner has filed similar petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2019 of 2017 challenging the said DVC proceedings and the same was pending.

8. The first respondent has already filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.3116 of 2017 in D.V.C.No.122 of 2016 claiming interim maintenance and the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed an order awarding interim maintenance at Rs.5,000/- each for the respondents 1 and 2 and that the petitioner aggrieved by the said order, has filed an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Trichirappalli, and the same was pending.

9. It is not in dispute that subsequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate of Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, after trial, has passed an order dated 06.10.2020 granting monthly maintenance at Rs.20,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.10,000/- to the second respondent payable from the date of petition and also granted residence and protection orders and orders for return of jewels and other Sridhana articles and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and also restrained the petitioner and others from committing Domestic Violence.

10. The main contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent, after filing the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act claiming maintenance and for other relief, has also simultaneously filed parallel maintenance petition with the same set of allegations and cause of action by invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is superfluous and that the very continuation of the said proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner is nothing but illegal and amounts to abuse of process of law.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Family Court ought not to have taken the impugned proceedings in M.C.No.109 of 2016 on its file, since the first respondent has already initiated a comprehensive petition under the Domestic Violence Act with the similar and identical relief on the same set of allegations and cause of action, that the first respondent by deliberately suppressing the filing of the petition under the Domestic Violence Act has approached the Family Court with unclean hands and that th