The need for adjustment or set-off of maintenance amounts awarded in previous proceedings under different statutes.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:-

(i) Order dated 17.09.2022, passed in Miscellaneous Case No.105 of 2019, Sujata vs. Vikas, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”), by which an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the Act”) has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as interim maintenance to the respondent no. 2, and;

(ii) Judgment and order dated 17.02.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.241 of 2022, Vikas Chaturvedi vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, by the court of First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appeal has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows: The respondent no.2, the wife of the revisionist, filed an application under Section 12 of the Act seeking maintenance from the revisionist. The revisionist and the respondent no.2 were married on 03.03.2008. It has been the case of the respondent no. 2 that after marriage, she was harassed and tortured for and in connection with an additional demand of dowry and on 26.06.2016, she was expelled from the house by the revisionist along with her daughter. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that she is not able to maintain herself, whereas, revisionist is a Teacher, who gets Rs. 55,000/- per month.

4. In the case, an application for interim maintenance has also been filed. It was objected to by the revisionist, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent no. 2, on her own, had left the company of the revisionist along with her child; she is getting an interim maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”); the revisionist has a liability of maintaining his old aged parents; the respondent no. 2 is also a Teacher, who gets Rs.20,000/- as salary. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 17.09.2022, the application for interim maintenance was allowed under Section 23 of the Act and the revisionist had been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month. This order was challenged in the appeal, which has also been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would raise the following points:-

(i) The respondent no.2 is already getting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code at the rate of Rs.10,000- per month; she could have moved an application for enhancement of the maintenance, but the application under the provisions of the Act seeking maintenance could not have been entertained.

(ii) According to the respondent no.2, she had been staying separate since 2016, and the application under Section 12 of the Act was filed long thereafter, which is barred by Section 468 of the Code.

(iii) The private respondent is already receiving Rs.10,000/- per month, as maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code. Therefore, additional amount could not have been paid. It could have been adjusted or set off, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & another; (2021) 2 SCC 324. In fact, in the case of Rajnesh (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprehensively discussed the law on the point of maintenance, etc. and in Para 128.1, observed as hereunder:-

“128.1. (i) Where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the court would consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding(s), while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding.”.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab & another; (2011) 12 SCC 588, N. Prasad vs. Harithalakshmi in 2020 SCC OnLine Mad. 1767 and Rachna Kathuria vs. Ramesh Kathuria, 2010 SC