THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION No.1289 of 2011 Date: 21-06-2011 Between: Smt.Addanki Laxmi Sailaja and another …..Petitioners And Addanki Jagadish Kalyan Kumar and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1289 of 2011 ORDER:- The three petitioners herein are petitioners in DVC.No.3 of 2010 which is a Domestic Violence Case filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the Act). The said case is pending on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (trial Court). 2. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the 1st respondent herein and the petitioners No.2 and 3 are stated to be their minor children. In the DVC Case, the petitioners claimed several reliefs. They however filed Criminal M.P.No.193 of 2010 in the said DVC Case in the trial Court claiming an ex parte interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to each of the petitioners i.e., totalling Rs.30,000/-. 3. The trial Court by its order dated 21.4.2010 after hearing both sides and also considering the fact that petitioners are already getting a maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month pursuant to the orders passed in FCOP.No.1482 of 2008 filed by the petitioners in the Court of Family Judge Visakhapatnam granted a further sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,000/- per month each to the petitioners No.2 and 3 from the date of the said miscellaneous petition in the DVC Case. Questioning that order, the 1st respondent filed Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2010 and that appeal was allowed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (appellate Court). It set aside the impugned order of the trial Court and directed the trial Court to dispose of the main DVC Case within three months from the date of receipt of its order. Assailing that order of the appellate Court, the petitioners in the DVC Case have come up with this revision. 4. It should be mentioned here itself that both the orders of the trial Court and appellate Court would disclose that though the marriage of the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent is not in dispute, both of them subsequently filed a consent divorce petition before the concerned Court and that the 1st petitioner has also got a paramour by name Balakrishna, but this paramour aspect is disputed by the 1st petitioner. The appellate Court order also reads that there was a settlement on 13.10.2008 and the 1st petitioner received a total sum of Rs.34,99,075/- towards divorce compensation. It also held that petitioners failed to place any prima facie evidence to show that the 1st respondent was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. It appears that the above aspects and the fact that the petitioners are already in receipt of a maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month weighed with the appellate Court in setting aside the interim maintenance granted by the trial Court. 5. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It may be noted that Section 36 of the Act says that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Basing on this provision, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that just because petitioners are getting maintenance in a Family Court O.P. that cannot be a ground to deny interim maintenance under the provisions of the Act and therefore, the appellate Court was not correct in reversing the order of the trial Court on that ground. He then argued that the maintenance being obtained from the Family Court order is only Rs.4,000/- per month which would not be sufficient at all having regard to the needs of the petitioners, the trial Court was right in granting interim maintenance and the Appellate Court was not justified in reversing its order. He further argued that it was not open for the appellate Court to go into the merits of the matter at that stage i.e. regarding the relationship of the 1st petitioner with one Balakrishna and also Ex.P1-receipt dated 13.10.2008 showing receipt of rupees 34 lakhs and odd by the 1st petitioner towards compensation as that was only a copy of the receipt. It should be mentioned here that there appears to be some mistake in marking the documents on behalf of the 1st respondent in the appellate Court as they should have been marked in B.Series or D.Series as the 1st respondent who was the appellant in the appellate Court was the respondent in the trial Court. This does not make any difference. 6. It may be noted that the petitioners filed the Crl.M.P.193 of 2010 only for interim maintenance. They are admittedly already in receipt of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- under an order from the Family Court in an O.P. filed by them. There are disputes between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent regarding the paternity of children and also payment of compensation which is already mentioned supra. The appellate Court discussed all these aspects and also the means of the 1st respondent and concluded that in the circumstances and having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties, it concluded that since the petitioners are already receiving maintenance amount under an order of the Family Court, they cannot be further granted interim maintenance under the Act. In the circumstances of the case, the appellate Court thought it fit to set aside the impugned order of the trial Court granting interim maintenance and in that view it directed the trial Court to dispose of the DVC Case within three months. 7. It is true that Section 36 of the Act no doubt says that the provisions of the Act are in addition to remedies available under other laws. The Act provides for various reliefs. However so far as relief of interim maintenance is concerned, it has to be decided on a prima facie case and it is granted usually where the claimant is in a distress situation. In the present case admittedly, the petitioners are in receipt of a maintenance of Rs.4,000/- already granted by the Family Court against the 1st respondent in another proceedings. Hence the factum relating to distress is absent in the present case. Thus, by relying upon Section 36 of the Act, the petitioners cannot claim and cannot be granted interim maintenance in a DVC Case especially in the circumstances of this case having regard to the natures of the disputes between the parties which are already mentioned supra. The appellate Court considered all these aspects and found against the petitioners. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the appellate Court which calls for interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, this revision for the aforesaid reasons is dismissed at the admission stage. The DVC Case is of 2010. Hence, the trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and both parties shall cooperate for its disposal. It goes without saying that both parties can raise all their pleas before the trial Court. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 21st June, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1289 of 2011 Date: 21-06-2011