Dual maintenance claims are permissible under different statutes, but the applicant must disclose previous orders and justify the need based on changing circumstances for additional relief.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness, legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order under Annexure-1 passed in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2021 by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, whereby, the decision of learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack in D.V. Misc. Case No.44 of 2021 under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violance Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’) granting interim maintenance in favour of the opposite party stands confirmed though with reduction of monthly alimony on the grounds inter alia that the same is not sustainable in law and hence, therefore, liable to be interfered with and set aside in the interest of justice.

2. As per the order in the DV proceeding, learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack allowed Rs.6,000/- towards interim maintenance in favour of the opposite party wife, which was reduced to Rs.4000/- by the learned Court below. The said order dated 17^th January, 2023 in appeal by learned Sessions Court is under challenge. According to the petitioner husband, the opposite party suppressed the earlier order of the Family Court in C.M.A. No.87 of 2019 arising out of a proceeding in C.P. No.139 of 2018 instituted by him, wherein, while entertaining an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month was allowed with an additional payment of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses borne by her. Furthermore, it is pleaded by the petitioner that the opposite party could not have been allowed interim maintenance in two separate proceedings as the same is not legally tenable. That apart, as per the petitioner, the opposite party is well educated and qualified and has had been in employment, hence, it was not right for the learned Courts below to grant such relief to her. With the above contention, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is questioned by the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parida-2, learned counsel for the opposite party.

4. According to Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, the interim maintenance should not have been granted to the opposite party when she could be in employment being an Engineering Graduate and the same cannot be allowed under the DV Act, when learned Family Court has already directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- a month to her as interim maintenance. It is contended that such demand for maintenance in two different forums is unfair and not justifiable in law. It is also contended that since the opposite party is a qualified professional and can earn on her own, any such maintenance as directed by the learned Courts below is not proper. In support of such contention, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the orders of Gujarat High Court in Special Criminal Application No. 2080 of 2010 dated 21^st October, 2010 ( Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat ; High Court of Bombay in Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar Vs. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar , 1992 Cri. L.J. 1845; High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal , (2000) II DMC 170 and Shri Bhavin Shah Vs. Smt. Sapna Shah , 2016 (I) OLR 755 of this Court to submit that both the learned Courts below fell into serious error in granting interim maintenance to the opposite party when she was allowed such a relief earlier by learned Family Court.

5. Mr. Parida-2, learned counsel for the opposite party justifies the impugned order under Annexure-1 and rather submits that the interim maintenance amount has