JUDGMENT Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.: (Oral) - The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Family Court, Rohtak in favour of the respondents, wife and minor son of the petitioner granting total maintenance at the rate of Rs.5500/- per month which includes Rs.3500/- per month for the wife and Rs.2000/- per month for the minor son. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that after the birth of the son on October 17, 2002, the petitioner suffered from Hepatitis B virus as such his wife had abandoned him on account of his disease being incurable. He has argued that as the wife has been staying away voluntarily from the petitioner she would not be entitled to any maintenance. Counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied upon the circumstance that an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for short ‘the Act’ filed by the respondent wife has already been dismissed. Counsel, relying upon the observations in the order passed by the Court under the Act, has contended that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should also have been dismissed on the same grounds as the respondent wife is voluntarily staying away from the petitioner. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that mere dismissal of the application under Section 12 of the Act will not debar the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as Section 26 (2) of the Act provides that any relief available under the provisions of the Act may be sought for by an aggrieved person in addition to or alongwith any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in any legal proceedings before the civil or criminal Court. Dismissal of application under Section 12 of the Act will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the respondent wife to seek relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. So far as the medical condition of the petitioner is concerned, the said fact had been brought to the notice of the Family Court. It is only after taking into consideration the said circumstance the meager amount of Rs.3500/- per month to the wife and Rs.2000/- per month to the minor son has been granted. So far as the medical condition of the petitioner is concerned, the said fact had been brought to the notice of the Family Court. It is only after taking into consideration the said circumstance the meager amount of Rs.3500/- per month to the wife and Rs.2000/- per month to the minor son has been granted. A perusal of the order passed by the Family Court indicates that the respondent wife has been earning sum of Rs.6000/- to Rs.7000/- per month by providing domestic help in 4 houses. With the said amount she has been maintaining herself as well as her son. Her son is getting education. She has got the responsibility of looking after the son and maintaining him. 5. In view of the said circumstances, no ground is made out for interference in the order passed by the Family Court. 6. So far as the ailment of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has not made any attempt to establish his illness by any treatment record. The document annexure P-4 is of any Geetanjali Hospital which indicates that the petitioner had been operated for renal stone 6 years back. He is reported to be HBSAG reactive. The status of SGPT is 68.1 against 49-50 being normal. The petitioner has not established by any document the money spent by him on his illness or his incapability to earn any money or to perform day to-day functions. No ground is made out for interference. 7. The petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek mediation or amicable settlement before the appropriate forum. 8. As the main petition is dismissed, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.