The findings of the Family Court in a maintenance order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. do not have a binding effect on the Courts dealing with the DV Act, and the order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. cannot foreclose the remedy available under the DV Act.

ORDER

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being crestfallen by the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.A. No. 11/2020, whereby the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore wherein the application filed under Section 23 of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'DV Act') was allowed and the petitioner No. 1 was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as interim maintenance to the respondent.

2. With regard to this revision petition, it is undisputed fact that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1/husband and respondent/wife was solemnized on 07.02.2004. It is also undisputed that the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance was dismissed by the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore vide order dated 19.07.2018.

3. Succinctly, the case of the respondent is that after marriage, the in-laws of the respondent have started demand of dowry and harassed the respondent while she was residing in her matrimonial house for a year. The petitioner No. 1/husband was posted at Hisar at that time and meanwhile, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 kicked out the respondent due to not fulfilling the demand of dowry. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1/husband took the respondent/wife to Pune, where petitioner No. 1/ husband assaulted respondent/wife due to which operation of respondent was conducted. Further, the beating continued and one day, petitioner No. 1/husband choked the neck of respondent. Even after this incident, the respondent only used to live in matrimonial house while her husband i.e. petitioner No. 1 used to stay at his home.

4. The petitioners controverted the aforesaid pleadings of respondent and submitted that the respondent used to live in her paternal home and when petitioner No. 1/husband resided in Indore, she came to her matrimonial home in Indore. However, she has not made any complaint regarding any incident. The allegations made by respondent are false and baseless. She lived at her paternal home without any sufficient reason. Hence, she is not entitled for maintenance.

5. Learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record and submissions of both parties, adjudicated in favour of respondent that the petitioner would pay of Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance. The order was challenged by the petitioners before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court, VI Additional Sessions Judge, Indore after considering the submissions of both parties rejected the appeal and affirmed the order of interim maintenance passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore.

6. The petitioners, impugning the order of learned Appellate Court as well as trial Court, mainly submitted that the contentions made in the application under Section 12 of the DV Act are same as raised in the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore and after considering the facts mentioned in the application, learned Family Court has dismissed the petition on 19.07.2018 with the findings that the petitioners had never refused to respondent from returning back to her marital house and she was living separately from the petitioner No. 1/husband on her own sweet will. Since the respondent did not wish to live with the petitioner No. 1/husband anymore, her application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance was dismissed. It is further contended that the learned trial Court has mis-interpretated the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Gyan Chand Vs. Smt. Rekha, 2010 (2) Cri.L.R. (Raj.) 1544, wherein it is held that the proceedings under Section 12 of DV Act and Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are similar in nature. Once the findings are given under Section 12 of DV Act,