An aggrieved person can claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act in addition to maintenance received under other provisions of law.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J —The instant revision has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 9.2.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, by which the order dated 7.9.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the respondent wife has been upheld.

2. In brief, facts as stated are that the respondent Harshlata filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Domestic Violence Act') claiming relief of maintenance. It was alleged that the respondent-wife was given severe beatings and was turned out of the matrimonial home for bringing inadequate dowry. The matter was referred to the Panchayat and subsequent thereto, the parties arrived at a compromise and the police recommended for cancellation report to be filed. The husband filed a petition for divorce before the Court at Fatehabad, which was dismissed and the appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by this High Court. Since the act and conduct of the petitioner-husband was such, the respondent-wife filed a petition against the petitioner herein invoking provision of the Domestic Violence Act claiming maintenance.

3. Upon notice, the petitioner appeared and alleged that the parties had been residing separately since the year 2007 and, therefore, the instant petition filed after lapse of more than six years i.e. in the year 2013, would be barred by the period of limitation. It was further submitted that there is no report of Protection Officer regarding offences as claimed. It was further submitted that a false FIR No. 373 dated 2.8.2007 under Sections 498-A, 406/34 IPC was lodged against the petitioner herein, which stood cancelled and, in fact, a petition was filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the respondent-wife has been awarded maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month and, therefore, the petition ought to be dismissed.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, by order dated 7.9.2016 allowed the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of filing the petition. Aggrieved against the said order, an appeal was preferred under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act which too was dismissed, by impugned order dated 9.2.2017, giving rise to the present petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act is not maintainable since the parties had been residing separately since 2006 and the said petition has been preferred after a lapse of more than six years. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent-wife has not shared residence after the year 2007 when she had got registered FIR No. 373 dated 2.8.2007 under Sections 498-A, 406/34 IPC and, therefore, the question of any domestic violence would not arise, while also arguing that the respondent-wife is not entitled to claim maintenance both under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. It is also submitted that once maintenance has been allowed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, enhancement, if any, could be claimed on instituting an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that too if there is change in circumstances, while also arguing that allegations regarding cruelty have been negated in the FIR that was lodged under Sections 406 and 498-A/34 IPC. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Madras High Court B. Prakash Vs. Deepa and another , (2016) 1 RCR(Criminal) 524.

6. Per contra, Mr. B.D. Sharma learned advocate appearing for the respondent, submits that the petition under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act is maintainable as the respondent-wife is an "aggrieved person" an