1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT Nitin Kulshrestha Vs. Smt. Neha Bhatnagar (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1097/2009) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. Date of Order :- 30.09.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.M.T. Alvi, for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.03.2009 passed by the Family Court No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned family court has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the non-petitioner. In a nutshell the facts of the case are that Non- petitioner, Smt. Neha Bhatnagar, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court claiming maintenance against the petitioner, Nitin Kulshrestha. She claimed that she is the lawful wedded wife of the petitioner and on 03.07.2005, petitioner and his family members threw her out of the matrimonial house. According to the non-petitioner, petitioner is an engineer and is earning Rs.30,000/- per month and he is morally and legally bound to protect her life.. Therefore, she prayed for a maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner submitted his reply to the application and denied all the allegations in the application. He stated that the non-petitioner is an earning lady and she is earning 2 Rs.20,000/- per month. He further stated that because of false case registered against him by the non-petitioner, he was terminated from the Bank. He is also suffering from cardiac problem. As such he is not in a position to pay any maintenance to the non-petitioner. Therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. After hearing both the parties, on 18.03.2009 the learned Family Court allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the non-petitioner from 01.03.2009. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2009, he has filed the present petition before this Court. Mr. M.T. Alvi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner is suffering from cardiac problem as two valves in his heart are weak. Therefore, he is unable to pay the maintenance to the non-petitioner. Secondly, the non- petitioner has already been granted interim relief under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Therefore, he cannot be asked to pay maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. For, the non-petitioner then enjoys maintenance both under the Criminal Procedure Code as well as under the Domestic Violence Act. Thirdly, the petitioner is willing to keep the non- petitioner with him. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Merely because the petitioner is suffering from a cardiac problem, and serious as it may be, it would not dissolve him from the liability to pay maintenance to the non-petitioner who happens to be 3 his lawful wedded wife. Sympathy of the Court cannot be misplaced. The Court is duty bound to follow the law. According to Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act, a proceedings under the Act are an addition to any other reliefs which the wife is entitled to under any other law being in force. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the non-petitioner is not entitled to get maintenance under two different provisions of laws is untenable. Although the petitioner claims that he is willing to keep the non-petitioner with him, this seems to be an afterthought in order to escape the liability of paying the maintenance amount. Even earlier the petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs.2,000/- per month, but he had failed to do so. His disobedience of order passed by the court, and his non-payment to the non-petitioner clearly prove that his intention is not bonofide. In this view of the matter, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-