HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11112 of 2009 and CRIMINAL PETITION No.5460 of 2010 COMMON ORDER:- The parties in both these criminal petitions which are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) are inter-related and the controversy to the extent it relates to the relief of maintenance claimed by the first respondent-wife in both these petitions is similar though not identical. Hence both these matters have been heard together and are with the consent of the counsel being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.11112 of 2009 is the husband of the respondent No.1 therein and the second respondent therein is their minor child. Respondent No.1 acting as the guardian of the respondent No.2 filed M.C.No.9/2007 i.e. a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C in the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad (trial Court) against the petitioner herein (husband) claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. The parties shall hereinafterwards be referred to as husband and wife and the others as their relatives. 3. The aforesaid M.C.No.9/2007 was partly allowed by the trial Court on 20.02.2008 granting a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to be paid from 28.04.2007 and it further directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of litigation. Assailing that order the husband filed Criminal Revision Petition No.27/2008 in the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad (Sessions Judge). The learned Sessions Judge after a contest dismissed the said revision by his order dated 09.10.2009. Challenging that order the husband filed Criminal Petition No.11112 of 2009 to quash the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 4. It is seen that after the disposal of the aforesaid revision petition, the wife filed a case i.e. D.V.C.No.18/2010 under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short Act) not only against her husband but also against his mother, sister and her husband claiming certain reliefs. In the said DVC the wife claimed five reliefs against all of them. The said reliefs claimed are as follows. “1) Direct the respondent to provide shelter for seeking out livelihood 2) Direct the respondent to return the dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and 5 tulas gold ornaments, wedding clothes to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and all house hold articles as dowry and Rs.1,50,000/- for marriage expenses and other miscellaneous expenses. 3) Direct the respondents to pay the maintenance to the petitioner and her child an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month under Sec.20 of DVC Act. 4) Direct the respondent to allow the petitioner along with child to stay peaceful at her matrimonial house. 5) Direct the respondent to pay compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental torture and emotional distress caused by the act of Domestic Violence by the respondent under sec.22 of DVC Act. 6) And pass other order or orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 5. The mother, the sister of the husband and her husband who are respondents 2 to 4 in the DVC filed Criminal Petition No.5460 of 2010 to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid DVC against them. Their main plea is that all the allegations made against them in the DVC are false and that they are not liable for any of the reliefs claimed against them in the said case and therefore the said DVC against them should be quashed. In view of the relationship between the parties in both these petitions they have been taken up for disposal by this common order. 6. So far as the legality of the maintenance order passed by the trial Court and the order of the learned Sessions Judge confirming the same passed in the husband’s Crl.R.P.No.27/2008 are concerned, it may be noted that admittedly there is no dispute regarding the relationship of the parties therein. Both the trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge concurrently found that the husband has been at fault and he neglected both his wife and child. Further the order of the learned Sessions Judge shows that he also considered the means of the husband and concluded that the monthly maintenance amount fixed at Rs.2,000/- each and also the litigation expenses fixed at Rs.3,000/- by the trial Court are reasonable. The above findings recorded concurrently by the trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge are pure findings of fact and do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and therefore on the merits in the said maintenance case they do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. One point which is raised by the husband’s counsel is that in the DVC also the wife apart from the other relief claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and her child against all the respondents and in this view of the matter the maintenance granted in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge should be set aside. There is no force in this contention. Sec.26(2) of the Act in substance says that an aggrieved person can seek the relief of maintenance claimable under Sec.20(1)(d) of the Act as an additional relief or along with any other relief which an aggrieved person may seek in a suit or legal proceedings before a civil or criminal court. Thus a DVC cannot be rejected on the ground that the wife already obtained maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In such a situation the husband can take to the notice of the trial Court dealing with the DVC about the maintenance granted under Sec.125 Cr.P.C which is now confirmed in this order and thereupon the trial Court shall take into account this order also in considering the claim of the wife for maintenance in the said case and pass appropriate orders regarding that relief. Hence it follows that the filing of the aforesaid DVC by the wife is not a ground to quash the order of the learned Sessions Judge confirming the order of maintenance granted by the trial Court. Accordingly Criminal Petition No.11112 of 2009 is dismissed. 8. That takes me to Criminal Petition No.5460 of 2010 which is filed by the husband’s mother, his sister and her husband who are respondents 1 to 4 in the DVC. The reliefs claimed in the DVC are already set out supra. Their plea is that only the husband i.e. the first respondent in the DVC is liable to the wife to pay all the amounts claimed in the DVC and they are not liable for the same in any manner. Their further plea is that even with regard to the relief of allowing the wife to stay in the matrimonial house which is claimed as relief No.4 in the DVC only the husband is liable and they are not liable and therefore the DVC against them should be quashed. 9. It may be noted that so far as husband’s sister and her husband are concerned the averments in the DVC are not clear and specific as to how they can be made liable for any of the reliefs claimed in the DVC. So far as the maintenance amount is concerned it is clear that they both cannot be made liable and even with regard to the other reliefs relating to allowing the petitioner to stay in the matrimonial house, the return of dowry amount, gold ornaments and house hold articles or their value and also the payment of compensation it can be said that the averments in the DVC do not show any specific cause of action or liability against them. Similarly it is not made clear as to how the husband’s sister and her husband are liable to provide shelter to the wife. In view of this it follows that the proceedings in the DVC against both of them cannot be allowed to be continued. 10. Then coming to the case of the mother of the husband who is the second respondent in the DVC, it is the version of the wife that her husband and her mother-in-law were entrusted with the gold ornaments and the other house hold articles mentioned in the DVC. It is also the version of the wife that her mother-in-law also joined her husband in preventing her in living the family house of the husband. However it is ultimately for the trial Court or the Court dealing with the DVC to decide on evidence as to what are the reliefs that are to be granted against the husband and the mother-in-law of the wife. Therefore it cannot be said that there is no case against them in the DVC which is now pending having regard to the reliefs claimed against them. 11. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons the Criminal Petition No.11112 of 2009 is dismissed. Further the Criminal Petition No.5460 of 2010 is also dismissed as against the first petitioner therein who is mother-in-law of the wife, but so far as petitioners 3 and 2 therein who are the husband’s sister and her husband are concerned it is allowed and the proceedings against them in the DVC are quashed. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 20th April 2011 CVRK