JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. Heard Shri S. Zia Qazi, learned Adv., for the Applicant and Shri V.S. Girmakar, learned Adv., for the Non-applicants. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant has challenged the order passed by the Family Court directing him to pay Rs. 1,500-00 per month to the non-applicants towards the maintenance, and Rs. 3,000/- towards the expenses. 4. The submission on behalf of the Applicant is that the non-applicants had filed proceedings under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which an order is passed on 16th July, 2011 directing the applicant to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to the non-applicant no.1 [wife] and Rs. 750/- per month to the Non-applicant no.2 [minor daughter] towards maintenance and the Family Court has overlooked this order while passing the impugned order. The learned Advocate, has argued that once the liability of applicant to pay the amount of maintenance and the entitlement of the Non-applicants to receive the amount of maintenance is determined by a competent Court in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the application filed by the Non-applicants under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not maintainable and, therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. 5. Shri Giramakar, learned Advocate, for the Non-applicants, has submitted that there is no bar to file proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, though the earlier application filed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was decided. It is further submitted that the applicant is not regularly paying the amount of maintenance as per the order passed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Advocate, has further stated that the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court, in addition to the amount of maintenance granted under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is proper and it cannot be said that it is exorbitant. It is prayed that the Revision be dismissed. 6. Considering the facts recorded by the Family Court in Paragraph 6 of the impugned order regarding the income of the applicant, in my view, interest of justice would be sub-served by passing the following order:- [a] The applicant shall pay Rs. 1,000-00 [rupees one thousand only] per month to the Non-applicant No.1, and Rs. 6. Considering the facts recorded by the Family Court in Paragraph 6 of the impugned order regarding the income of the applicant, in my view, interest of justice would be sub-served by passing the following order:- [a] The applicant shall pay Rs. 1,000-00 [rupees one thousand only] per month to the Non-applicant No.1, and Rs. 750-00 [rupees seven hundred fifty only] per month to the Non-applicant no.2 as per the order passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 47 of 2011 on 16th July, 2011. [b] In addition, the applicant shall pay Rs. 500/- [rupees five hundred only] per month to the Non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 250/- [rupees two hundred fifty only] per month to the Non-applicant No.2 from 1st May, 2014, i.e., after the impugned order came to be passed by the Family Court. [c] The Applicant shall pay Rs. 3,000/- [rupees three thousand only] to the Non-applicant No.1 towards the expenses. [d] The impugned order is modified as above. [e] Criminal Revision is partly allowed in the above terms. [f] In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. 7. Considering the nature of claim of the wife and minor daughter, the legal issue raised by the learned Advocate, for the husband is not dealt with and is left open for consideration in some other case.