to all those husband s who are facing multiple maintenance case
a. Pb. & Har High court:-In Sudershan Lal V/s Smt. Deepak @ Reema Khurana, 1985 Cr. L.J. (NOC) 52 and Paramjit Kaur V/s Surinder Singh, 1992(2) Criminal Court Judgments 171– it was held that the wife can claim only one maintenance. Though there are different forums open to her to claim maintenance, yet there cannot be parallel running of different maintenance orders, for one and the same. Only one of them is enforceable and others remain just decelerate in dormancy or consumed. It is for the wife to choose as to which of the two orders she wants to enforce.
b. Bombay High Court: 998(2) Civil Court Cases 429 (Bombay) Sangeeta Piyush Raj Vs Piyush :-Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 18 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 - Pendency of matrimonial proceedings before Family Court - Interim maintenance - It is not necessary that application has to be made under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the same Court - In such situation, application under Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is maintainable- However, once interim maintenance is granted either under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under S.18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, application under the other Act is not maintainable.
c. Bombay High Court:-Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar vs Mrs. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar ... on 17 July, 1991 , Equivalent citations: 1992 CriLJ 1845 Bench: B Wahane.- The non-applicants could not be allowed to ride two horses at a time (two simultaneous proceedings in two different Coruts) and could not be permitted to continue the maintenance proceedings u/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. when they had already chosen the alternative remedy in Reg. C.S. No. 227/86. It is well settled law that the judgment of Civil Court shall prevail over the judgment of Criminal Court. The natural justice demands that parallel proceedings cannot be allowed to continue in different Courts.
d. Delhi High court:- Rachna Kathuria ... Versus Ramesh Kathuria on 30.8.2010, in Crl.M.C.No. 130/2010 & Crl.M.A.No. 504/2010, JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA:- 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…………
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.
e. Gujarat High Court: HEMLATABEN MAHESHBHAI CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 :, on 21/10/2010 in Special criminal application No. 2080 of 2010 JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI: Wife had prayed for interim maintenance before the learned Magistrate in proceedings arising out of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Such prayer was granted. Husband challenged the said order dated 19.12.2009. Learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate.
When initial order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was already passed by the competent court which has also attended finality by way of interim arrangement, unless and until strong reasons, learned Magistrate could not have granted maintenance to the wife, In the event of change in the circumstances, it is always open to the wife to seek modification of the maintenance order under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, committed no error in passing the impugned order.
f. Punjab-Haryana High Court:- Gian Chand vs Dilpreet Kaur on 23 February, 2010, In Civil Revision No. 2427 of 2009, JUSTICE S. D. ANAND: There can be no dispute with the proposition that a wife can avail of maintenance in the course of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or it can have the cake in terms of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
