Rajjulal Jaiswal vs Prema Bai Jaiswal
2021 Latest Caselaw 1030 MP

                                                         1                                 CRR-5221-2019
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         CRR-5221-2019
                                      (RAJJULAL JAISWAL Vs PREMA BAI JAISWAL AND OTHERS)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 24-03-2021
                            Shri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                            Shri Om Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

The short question raised by the husband in this petition is that after granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., another Court cannot grant maintenance under Section 20 or any other provisions of the Domestic

Violence Act to the wife or the children.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Renu Mittal vs. Anil Mittal (CRL RP No. 633/2010 & CRL MA No. 15451/2010) wherein in paragraph-4 the Delhi High Court held:-

"4. It must be considered that for granting maintenance, a party can either approach the Court of MM under Domestic Violence Act soon after commission of Domestic Violence or under Section 125 Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance. The

Jurisdiction for granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and Domestic Violence Act is parallel jurisdiction and if maintenance has been granted under Section 125 Cr. P.C. after taking into account the entire material placed before the Court and recording evidence, it is not necessary that another MM under Domestic Violence Act should again adjudicate the issue of maintenance. The law does not warrant that two parallel courts should adjudicate same issue separately. If adjudication has already been done by a Court of MM under Section 125 Cr.

P.C., re-adjudication of the issue of maintenance cannot be done by a Court of MM under Domestic Violence Act. I, therefore, consider that learned MM was right in allowing maintenance Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by SMT POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2021.03.26 15:07:08 IST 2 CRR-5221-2019 only to the tune of ` 6,000/- p.m."

Reference of the provision of Section 20 (1) (d) of the Domestic Violence Act is suffice to negate the ground taken by the petitioner. Section 20 (1) (d) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2012 reads as under:-

"20 (1) (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well

as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force."

Thus it is manifest that even after adjudication of the dispute of maintenance between the husband and wife or the other persons entitled to, the Magistrate is entitled to consider the issue and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order dated 05.09.2019, which is under challenge in the present petition. Therefore, admission is declined and the petition is dismissed.

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise his objection against the maintenance.

Parties are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate on 09.04.2021.

                                                                              (VIRENDER SINGH)
                                                                                   JUDGE


                      pnm




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
SMT POONAM
MANEKAR
Date: 2021.03.26
15:07:08 IST