The petitioner-husband is before this Court praying to

quash

the

order

dated

12.06.2019

passed

in

Crl.R.P.No.14/2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharwad

confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate in

Crl.Misc.141/2015 dated 15.10.2018.

2. Heard Miss.Joshna P Dhanave, learned counsel for

the petitioner. Respondent is served and un-represented.

3. Sans details, facts in brief germane for a resolution

of the dispute in the lis are as follows:

The petitioner and the respondent are husband and

wife. Marriage between them takes place on 13.04.2001.

The marital life between the couple appears to have turned

sore, pursuant to which, among other proceedings the

respondent-wife files a petition in Crl.Misc.No.2/2009

invoking Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short). The learned

3

Magistrate before whom the miscellaneous case was filed

under the Act while entertaining the case awards a

maintenance of Rs.1,000/-. After invoking the provisions of

the

Act,

the

respondent-wife

files

a

petition

in

Crl.Misc.No.141/2015 invoking Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for

enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded under the

Act. The petition is allowed and the respondent-wife is

awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from the date of the

order.

4.

Feeling

aggrieved

by

the

order

passed

in

Crl.Misc.No.141/2015, the petitioner-husband files Criminal

Revision Petition in Crl.R.P.No.14/2019 invoking Section 397

of the Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge dismisses the said

Revision Petition by his order dated 12.06.2019 confirming

the order passed by the learned Magistrate enhancing

maintenance to the wife from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. It is

these two orders that are called in question in the subject

petition.

4

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

husband Miss. Joshan P Dhanave would vehemently argue

and contend that the respondent once having invoked the

provisions of the Act could not have filed an application

seeking enhancement under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. The

order passed by the learned Magistrate as affirmed by the

learned Sessions Judge are orders without jurisdiction. The

learned counsel would seek quashment of the said orders.

6.

The

respondent-wife

is

served

and

remains

unrepresented.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and perused the material on record. In

furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls for my

consideration is, “Whether the maintenance awarded

under the Domestic Violence Act can be sought to be

enhanced under the Cr.P.C.?”

5

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The

respondent-wife invokes Section 12 of the Act seeking reliefs

that are available under Section 12. Section 12 reads as

follows:

“12. Application to Magistrate.—(1) An aggrieved

person or a Protection Officer or any other person on

behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application

to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this

Act:

Provided that before passing any order on such application,

the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic

incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the

service provider.

(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may

include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of

compensation or damages without prejudice to the right

of such person to institute a suit for compensation or

damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic

violence committed by the respondent:

Provided

that

where

a

decree

for

any

amount

as

compensation or damages has been passed by any court in

favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or

payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under

this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such

decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained

in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law

for the time being in