JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. (ORAL)

CRL.M.A. 11631/2016(delay in filing the appeal) & CRL.M.A.

11633/2016 (delay in re-filing the appeal)

1. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, as well as, regard being had to the fact that the issue involved concerns the maintenance of wife, the delay in filing and re-

filing of the appeal is condoned.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

CRL.M.A. 12265/2017 (delay in filing the reply).

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing the reply is condoned.

4. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.REV.P. 502/2016

5. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 08.09.2014, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 125 CrPC has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have already been awarded maintenance under the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The relevant part of the impugned order dated

08.09.2014, reads as under:-

“30. In the present case, it is the same provision of law, i.e., 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance that is being agitated under two Acts i.e. under the Family Court Act, 1984 as well as under Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

31. The same petition cannot be entertained by two courts. Since the petition under Section Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has already been filed and is prior in time and interim maintenance in the sum of Rs.5,000- has already been granted under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is held that no further orders are required to be made for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.”...

6. The issue raised in the present revision petition is that whether or not two or more petitions for grant of maintenance are maintainable simultaneously under different statutes .

7. The issue is no more res integra, in as much as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs Neha & Anr.,(2021) 2 SCC 324 has held that a party is not precluded from approaching the Court for grant of maintenance under more than one enactment, since the nature and purpose of the relief granted under each Act is distinct and independent.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified that if in one proceeding an amount is awarded towards maintenance, then in the subsequent proceedings, the maintenance awarded in the earlier proceeding has to be taken note of and adjustment or set off of the said amount has to be granted. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads as under:-

“16. Maintenance may be claimed under one or more of the aforementioned statutes, since each of these enactments provides an independent and distinct remedy framed with a specific object and purpose. For instance, a Hindu wife may claim maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA”), and also in a substantive proceeding for either dissolution of marriage, or restitution of conjugal rights, etc. under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”) by invoking Sections 24 and 25 of the said Act.

17. In Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal [Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal, (1969) 3 SCC 802 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 127] , the Supreme Court held that there was no inconsistency between the CrPC and HAMA. Section 4(b) of the HAMA would not repeal or affect the provisions of Section 488 of the old CrPC. It was held that : (SCC pp. 804-05, para 4)

“4. … Both can stand together. The Maintenance Act is an act to amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. The law was substantially similar before and nobody ever suggested that Hindu Law, as in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, insofar as it dealt with the maintenance of children, was in any way inconsistent with Section 488 CrPC. The scope of the two laws is different. Section 488 provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to all religions and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties. Recently the question came before the Al