JUDGMENT (oral)

1. The point raised in the present petition is very short and precise.

2. Petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) and, inter alia, prayed for maintenance and alternate accommodation or rent @Rs.75,000/- per month.

3. On 25.08.2023, her application under Section 23 of PWDV Act was disposed of.

4. No relief was granted to her as learned Magisterial Court came to the opinion that it was not a case where complainant was unable to maintain herself and that she had capacity to work and maintain herself.

5. The wife i.e. petitioner herein had also prayed for alternate accommodation of same level and fact remains that no such relief has been granted to her as per the abovesaid order dated 25.08.2023.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court which was registered as CRL.A. No. 382/2023.

7. Fact, however, remains that petitioner also knocked the doors of the learned Family Court by filing a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and learned Judge, Family Court directed maintenance @ Rs. 25,000/- per month vide order dated 31.05.2025. Feeling aggrieved by the abovesaid order, both the sides i.e. husband and the wife have filed separate Revision Petitions which are pending adjudication before this Court and certain directions in the abovesaid matters have also been given on 19.12.2025.

8. The abovesaid appeal came up for further consideration before the learned First Appellate Court on 31.01.2026 and it has adjourned the proceedings of the abovesaid appeal till the aforesaid Revision Petitions are disposed of by this Court.

9. Such order dated 31.01.2026 is under challenge.

10. Needless to emphasize, any such wife can seek maintenance by taking recourse to various statutory provisions, including by filing a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and by filing appropriate complaint under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV). Though, at times, the facts might be somewhat overlapping, merely because a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending before a superior Court i.e. before the Family Court Judge, it would not by itself, mean that the Magisterial Court cannot or pass any directions. Any such approach would render the provision of PWDV Act redundant. Reference be made to Rajnesh v. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324 whereby it is held that there is no bar to seek maintenance under different statutes. Paragraphs 60-61 of the abovesaid judgment read as under:-

“60. It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant.

61. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the Applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proce