Multiple maintenance under DV Act denied when CrPC 125 already decided

It is a short and sweet (depending on the ears) judgment which denies fresh application for maintenance under PWDVA (DV Act) when a previous maintenance under CrPC 125 is already decided.  Another crisp and clear judgment by justice S N Dhingra.

Important part of judgment below:

If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after  adjudication  maintenance  has  been  determined  by  a competent  court  either  in  Civil  Suit  or  by  Court  of  MM  in  an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the Act.  The Court of MM under the Act has power to grant maintenance and monetary reliefs on an interim  basis  in  a  fast  track  manner  only  in  those  cases  where woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under Civil Court or under Section 125 Cr.P.C.    If the woman has already  moved  Court  and  her  right  of  maintenance  has  been adjudicated by a competent Civil Court or by a competent Court of MM under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for any enhancement of maintenance already granted, she will have to move the same Court and she cannot approach MM under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by way of an application of interim or final nature to grant additional maintenance.  This petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.

Full judgment text below:

————————————–

              * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   Date of Reserve:   August 25, 2010
                                                      th
                   Date of Order: 30  August, 2010

+  Crl.M.C.No. 130/2010 & Crl.M.A.No. 504/2010
                                                               30.8.2010

        Rachna Kathuria                                          … Petitioner
                             Through: Mr. P.Narula, Advocate

               Versus

        Ramesh Kathuria                                   … Respondent
                             Through:Mr. S.S.Saluja, Advocate

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.  Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?   Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                               Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                       Yes.

JUDGMENT

               By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner

has assailed an order dated 22  October 2009 of learned Additional

Sessions  Judge  passed  in  appeal  whereby  the  appeal  of  the

petitioner was dismissed.

2.             The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (                in short

the Act) and along with it she filed an application under Section 29

of the Act seeking maintenance.   The learned Court of MM observed

that  petitioner  was  living  separate  from  her  husband  since  3

January, 1996.  She had filed a Civil Suit under Hindu Adoption and

Maintenance Act and an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and

she was getting a total maintenance of ` 4000/- per month from the

respondent.  In case the petitioner felt that maintenance awarded to

her was not sufficient, the proper course for her was to approach

the  concerned  Court  for  modification  of  the  order  as  already

observed by the High Court in a petition filed by her earlier and the

application  was  dismissed.    Against  this  petitioner  preferred  an

appeal.  The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal

and the petitioner has preferred this petition.

3.             It must  be understood that  the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not create any additional

right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person.  It

only puts the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available

to an aggrieved person on fast track.  If a woman living separate

from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and

after  adjudication  maintenance  has  been  determined  by  a

competent  court  either  in  Civil  Suit  or  by  Court  of  MM  in  an

application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she does not have a right to

claim additional maintenance under the Act.  The Court of MM under

the Act has power to grant maintenance and monetary reliefs on an

interim  basis  in  a  fast  track  manner  only  in  those  cases  where

woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either

under Civil Court or under Section 125 Cr.P.C.    If the woman has

already  moved  Court  and  her  right  of  maintenance  has  been

adjudicated by a competent Civil Court or by a competent Court of

MM under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for any enhancement of maintenance

already granted, she will have to move the same Court and she

cannot approach MM under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act by way of an application of interim or final nature to

grant additional maintenance.  This petition is not maintainable and

is hereby dismissed.

August 30,  2010                            SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn