1 Cri.Revn. Appln. No.287/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.287 OF 2010 Syed Amin s/o Syed Kalim Jahagirdar ... PETITIONER VERSUS Ayesha Begum w/o Syed Amin Jahagirdar and another ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Madhav Ghode, Advocate holding for Shri A.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 15th November, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This is a criminal revision application preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, granting maintenance allowance of Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent No.1 and of Rs.700/- per month to the respondent No.2, on 13.10.2010. 2. The respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is his daughter, born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. It was 2 Cri.Revn. Appln. No.287/2010 the case of the respondent No.1 that she was driven out of the matrimonial home and was compelled to take shelter of her parents without any means to support herself and her daughter. She contended that, the petitioner is engaged in a business of sale of kerosene and earns income in the range of Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/- per month and as such, can spare Rs.3000/- as a maintenance allowance to them. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that, the quantum of the maintenance granted is excessive and not supported by the evidence on record. He further submitted that, the maintenance granted by the Family Court is in addition to the maintenance awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Criminal Application No.565/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Third Court, Aurangabad on 3.3.2010. 3. Section 26 read with Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides a complete answer to the submission made by the learned Advocate for the applicant regarding grant of additional maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the said Act is in addition to the relief of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 26 of the Act in clear terms stipulates that any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may 3 Cri.Revn. Appln. No.287/2010 also be sought in any legal proceedings before a Civil Court, Family Court or a Criminal Court affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent, whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of the said Act. It further stipulates that, relief thereunder may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceedings before a Civil or Criminal Court. Only duty that is cast upon the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than the proceedings under the said Act is to inform the concerned Magistrate of the grant of such relief. In the instant case, the fact of grant of relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was brought to the notice of the Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.E-171/2009, wherein the impugned order was passed. 4. Adverting to the record, it can be seen that, the respondent No.1 Ayesha Begum examined herself by tendering affidavit dated 11.9.2009 and making herself available for cross- examination. She testified that, she was victim of matrimonial cruelty at the hands of her husband, the petitioner herein and the petitioner has been earning Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/- per month from his kerosene business. Her cross-examination brought forth nothing to discredit her testimony. As against this, the petitioner 4 Cri.Revn. Appln. No.287/2010 kept himself away from the witness box and left the matter to the discretion of the Family Court. 5. Learned Family Court did consider the evidence and pleadings of the rival parties and made modest estimation of the income of the petitioner at Rs.7000/- per month and proceeded to fix the maintenance allowance at Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs.700/- per month to the respondent No.2. 6. No perversity or legal error can be seen in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. Criminal Revision Application, therefore, must fail and is dismissed accordingly. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/crra287.10