The interim maintenance under Domestic violence court to

decide after considering the interim maintenance of 125

CrPc.

In Prakash Babulal Dangi v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC, the Bombay

High Court.
The only small issue, which appears to be raised by the parties, pertains to the
confusion as to which order is to be followed; 'whether the order of maintenance
passed in the proceedings filed WP-3791-16-&-3239-14.doc under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. is to be followed, or, whether the order passed in the proceedings
filed under Domestic Violence Act, is to be followed ?
The Husband paid the amount of maintenance, as awarded under the Domestic
Violence Act, he is not liable to pay the amount of maintenance, as awarded
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In the said Writ Petition, the husband has also
produced the receipt of payment of the maintenance awarded under
the Domestic Violence Act. However, his contention was flatly rejected by this
Court and it was held that, the husband has to comply with the order passed in
the proceedings filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It was further held that, as the
husband has not complied with the order of the Family Court passed in the
proceedings filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., he cannot be heard in the matter
and his Revision Application, therefore, was dismissed.
Thus, in view of this order the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision
Application No.151 of 2016, there remains absolutely no scope as to the
confusion between the parties as to which order is to be obeyed. It follows that,
as both the orders are passed by two different Forums in two different
proceedings, both the orders are binding on the Petitioner-husband and
Respondent-wife and they have to comply with both the orders, unless they are
varied or set aside.
Bombay High Court had held that maintenance could be awarded both under the
DV Act as well as under Section 125 CrPC, provided the parties seeking similar
relief specifically mention any such order in her/his favour passed by any other
competent Court of law.
 Can a wife claim maintenance under S. 125, CrPC after
obtaining a maintenance order in her favour under DV
Act? Bombay HC answers

The petitioner-wife has impugned the order of the Family Court refusing to
grant her maintenance under S. 125, CrPC on the sole ground that the
maintenance was already granted to her under the provisions of the DV Act. The
Family Court held that there was no need to grant maintenance merely because
the petition was filed under different enactment.
Hence, the question for determination before the Court was whether
maintenance can be granted under the DV Act and Section 125, CrPC
simultaneously.
The Court noted that the object of the DV Act is to provide a minimum relief to
the aggrieved person extending the emergent help of the Court orders to
provide, protection from violence, immediate assistance for residents,
medications, and fooding.
Considering that Section 36 of the DV Act provides that the provisions of the
Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other
law, for the time being in force, the Court observed that the DV Act does not
affect the rights of the parties conferred under the existing laws.

Similarly, in Sanjay v. Swati, 2005 SCC and Vishal v. Aparna, 2018 SCC, the
Bombay High Court had observed that though the wife can simultaneously
claim maintenance under the different enactments, it does not in any way mean
that the husband can be made liable to pay the maintenance awarded in each of
the said proceedings.

The Supreme Court in Shome Nikhil Danani v. Tanya Banon Danani SLA
(Crl.) No(s).6005 of 2019, has also taken the view that mere passing of an order
under Section 125, CrPC did not preclude the respondent from seeking
appropriate reliefs under the DV Act.