Jagjivan Lal Shukla vs Smt. Mukta Devi

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Ved Prakash Shukla For the Petitioner.

This petition has been filed against the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 26.11.2003 by which he has granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- to the daughter in the proceeding under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 18.9.2015 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

Apart from other grounds, one ground has been argued before this court that the wife has initiated a proceeding (registered as Criminal Case No. 1588/2009) u/s 125 CrPC, in which the order relating to maintenance has been granted on 6.1.2012. She has also initiated another proceeding (registered as Case No. 555/2010) u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, in which also, the court below has granted maintenance by order dated 24.8.2011. Thus, concealing this fact, the proceeding under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been initiated, although Section 26(3) of the Act requires to disclose the relief obtained by the aggrieved person in other proceeding, but she has not disclosed the information regarding the grant of maintenance, either in the proceeding u/s 125 CrPC or in the proceeding u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner has specifically raised these grounds before the appellate court, but the appellate court, without taking any notice of these facts, has dismissed the appeal.

I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. So far as the argument that the respondent has not disclosed the relief granted under the different Acts to her in her petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as required u/s 26(3) of the Act is concerned, the petition was filed on 28.1.2010 and maintenance was granted on 24.8.2011 and 6.11.2012, respectively. Therefore, it was a subsequent date when the relief was granted, as such, it cannot be said that there is any defect in the petition and the petitioner was guilty for not disclosing the relief granted to her.

However, the fact remains that the respondent is getting maintenance in two different cases and in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary, AIR 1999 SC 536, the maintenance granted in other proceeding is liable to be adjusted, However, Additional Government Advocate points out that this court in Matters under Article 227 No. 6547/2015 (Vishal Bohra v. State) decided on 6.11.2015 has held that the maintenance granted in other proceeding was not liable to be adjusted in the proceeding under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This court is not inclined to enter into this controversy at this stage as the petitioner is required to lay foundation in this respect before the Magistrate concerned. In such circumstances, the petitioner is given opportunity to raise this ground before the Magistrate concerned, who after hearing the parties, shall pass suitable order, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of filing of the objection by the petitioner in this respect.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.