1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Arun Bairwa V/s. Smt. Anjana Devi S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2211/2010 S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Date of Order :: November 24, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Prahlad sharma for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2009, whereby the Family Court No.2, Jaipur has granted a maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month in favour of the wife, the respondent No.1 and Rs.800/- per month in favour of their son, Mohan. The brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., had been filed for getting maintenance before the Family Court No.2, Jaipur by the respondent. According to the petitioner, due to mis-communication, he could neither appear before the Family Court, nor file the reply. The learned Family Court, vide order dated 27.04.2009 decided the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C and granted a maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month in favour of respondent No.1 and 2 Rs.800/- per month in favour of their son, Mohan. Hence,this petition before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the order dated 27.04.2009 was an ex-parte order and due to certain communication gaps, the petitioner could not appear before the Court. Moreover, the petitioner happens to be a poor person, who cannot afford to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent and their son. Lastly, the respondent is already getting a maintenance under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Therefore, she is not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any reason for the non-appearance of the petitioner. He has also failed to show reason for “mis- communication”. Once the notices were received by the petitioner, the learned trial Court was certainly justified in passing the order ex-parte, when the petitioner failed to appear before the Court. The inability to pay the maintenance is not a reason to quash the maintenance order. After all, the 3 petitioner is legally bound to maintain his son and his wife. Lastly, the provisions of Domestic Violence Act are “in addition to” any other provision of law for the time being in force. Therefore, merely because the respondent is receiving a maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, would not prevent her from seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Moreover, Section 125 Cr.P.C., does not carve out exception with regard to the maintenance granted under the D.V., Act. Therefore, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-