1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Cr Revision Petition No. 587/2010 Ripu Sudan @ Bundy Vs State of Rajasthan & anr 26.7.2010 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Deepak Asopa - for the petitioner Mr Laxman Meena – PP for the State BY THE COURT: By this revision petition a challenge has been made to the order dated 1.5.2010 whereby maintenance of Rs.2000/- has been awarded to the non-petitioner. The order aforesaid was passed on an application filed under section 125 CrPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to filing the application under section 125 CrPC, respondent No.2- wife invoked jurisdiction of the competent court under the provisions of section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005') and the competent court vide order dated 15.7.2008 dismissed the application for denying interim maintenance. In view of dismissal of the said application, application under section 125 CrPC was not maintainable. The principle of estoppal applies to the case as 2 on the same set of facts another application under section 125 CrPC cannot be maintained. Reference of the judgment in the case of “Gyan Chand Vs Smt Rekha” 2010 WLC(Rajasthan) UC page 340 has been made. In view of aforesaid, it is prayed that the order dated 1.5.2010 may be set aside. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on same set of facts application under section 125 CrPC is not maintainable when earlier application under section 23 of the Act of 2005 was rejected by the competent court. To appreciate the argument, I have perused the order passed on the application filed under section 23 of the Act of 2005. Perusal of the first order shows that it was passed on 15.7.2008 when parties were yet to lead evidence. It is mentioned in the order itself that till the evidence is led by the parties application for grant of interim maintenance cannot be entertained thus dismissal of the application is not on merit. The application under section 125 CrPC has been allowed after considering the facts available on record before the competent court. In view of aforesaid, question of estoppal does not arise. The right as otherwise exist with the non-petitioner under section 125 CrPC is not taken away on 3 account of dismissal of the application filed under section 23 of the Act of 2005. This is more so when earlier application under the Act of 2005 was not rejected after discussing the merits of the case. In the background aforesaid, judgment in the case of Gyan Chand (supra) does not apply to this case. In view of aforesaid, I find no error in the impugned order dated 1.5.2010. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. (MN Bhandari), J. bnsharma