no parallel domestic violence and 125 Crpc cases for maintenance: Delhi High Court 2010

Date of Reserve: 22nd September, 2010
Date of Order: September 27, 2010
+CRL. R.P. No. 633 of 2010, CRL. M.A. NO. 15451/2010

RENU MITTAL … Petitioner
Through: Mr Shiv Charan Garg with Mr.
Imran Kha, Advs.
ANIL MITTAL & ORS. … Respondents
Through: Mr O.P. Saxena, Addl. PP for the
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against
an order dated 20th May, 2010 whereby learned Additional Sessions
Judge (ASJ) dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner against the
order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) partly allowing the
application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2006 (‘Domestic Violence Act’ for short) and partly rejecting the
application under Domestic Violence Act.
CRL. R.P. 633 OF 2010 Page 2 of 4
2. The petitioner had married the respondent in the year 2006
and a dispute arose between her and her husband soon after the
marriage and in the year 2007 itself the petitioner filed a petition
under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.) against
the respondent for grant of maintenance. Learned MM awarded a
maintenance of ` 6,000/- p.m. The petitioner also filed an FIR u/s
498A/406 IPC against respondent and thereafter filed an application
under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act seeking therein, apart
from maintenance, compensation under various heads of ` 1.00
lakh, ` 2.00 lakh, ` 3.00 lakh and ` 5.00 lakh. She had also asked
for rights of residence. The learned MM after considering the
averments made by both the parties, observed that Section 12(2) of
the Domestic Violence Act provides that compensation can be
claimed by the parties for the injuries under civil suit as well. The
petitioner had made astronomical claims for compensation without
specifying grounds for different compensations in her petition. At
one place the claim was of ` 1.00 lakh, at another place for ` 2.00
lakh, at third place for ` 3.00 lakh and at fourth place for ` 5.00
lakh. In support of these claims no documents etc. were filed. She
also claimed Istridhan and dowry, while she had already preferred a
criminal case under Section 498-A/406 of IPC against the respondent
and issue of dowry demand or non return of any article was pending
before the competent Court and that Court was to decide if any
Istridhan/ dowry article was still with the respondent. The Court
CRL. R.P. 633 OF 2010 Page 3 of 4
therefore allowed the application of the petitioner only partly to the
extent of re-confirming the maintenance of ` 6,000/- p.m. and as
awarded to her by the learned MM under Section 125 of Cr. P.C.
dismissing the rest of the claim. Learned ASJ after going through
the entire material upheld the order of MM.
3. The revision petitioner has argued that learned ASJ did not fix
maintenance after considering the evidence of the parties and fixed
the maintenance on the basis of order passed by the Court of MM
under Section 125 of Cr. P.C.
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,
CRL. R.P. 633 OF 2010 Page 4 of 4
consider that learned MM was right in allowing maintenance only to
the tune of ` 6,000/- p.m.
6. So far as other reliefs are concerned, the learned MM and ASJ
had given liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and
prove that she had suffered loss and was entitled for compensation.
I find no ground to interfere with this order of learned ASJ as the
order is not without jurisdiction. I also find force in the reasoning
given by learned ASJ that since the matter regarding dowry articles
and Istridhan was pending before another court, it was rightly not
gone into by MM as it would not have been appropriate for the Court
of MM under Domestic Violence Act to initiate simultaneous
adjudication in respect of Istridhan and dowry articles, when another
court was seized with the matter.
7. I, therefore, find no force in this petition. The petition is