JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. PC, for the following prayer : "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed this misc. petition may kindly be allowed by quashing the criminal proceedings Original No. 182/17 under section 125 Cr. P.C., (Payal Vs. Rana Ram) pending in Family Court No.l, Jodhpur and Domestic Case No.226/17 (Payal Vs. Rana Ram) pending in Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jodhpur. " 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent entered in wedlock on 14.5.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of their marriage a daughter was born on 14.2.2013. Due to strained relationship a divorce petition was filed on 25.9.2012, in which an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent, that came to be allowed on 16.10.2014 whereby certain interim maintenance was granted. The respondent thereafter filed another petition U/s.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 28.7.2017 alongwith an application U/s.23 of the Act for grant of monetary relief. The respondent then filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C., on 06.12.2017, which has now been allowed and a maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month has been granted. 3. The bone of contention in the present case is "whether simultaneous proceedings under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act; U/s.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125 Cr. P.C., would operate ?" 4. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain judgments to submit that if the facts are the same, then simultaneous proceedings in Domestic Violence Act and under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will not be permissible, reference whereof is as under :- Hon'ble Madras High Court in S. Suriya Devi Vs. Thilip Kumar (Crl. O.P. Nos.27507 & 10089 of 2017 and Crl. M.P. Nos.6680 & 6681 of 2017); Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs. Asha Kumari & Anr., passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3658 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (c) No.6301 of 2017); judgment of Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in B. Prakash Vs. Deepa & Anr. In Crl. RC. (MD) No.453 of 2014; Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (Special Criminal Application No.2080 of 2010); judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Renu Mittal Vs. Anil Mittal & Ors., (Crl. Deepa & Anr. In Crl. RC. (MD) No.453 of 2014; Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (Special Criminal Application No.2080 of 2010); judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Renu Mittal Vs. Anil Mittal & Ors., (Crl. R.P. No.633 of 2010, Crl.M.A. No.154451/2010); Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rachna Kathuria Vs. Ramesh Kathuria (Crl.M.C. No.130/2010 & Crl. M.A. No.504/2010); judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar Vs. Mrs. Shaila Ravindra Karamkar reported in 1992 Cri. LJ 1845; judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) in Ganesha Ram Vs. Jamuna Bai & Anr., reported in 2012(3) R.Cr.D 164 (Raj.); judgment of Hon' ble Madras High Court in B. Prakash Vs. Deepa (CRL. RC. (MD) No.453 of 2014 and M.P. No.l of 2014. 5. Counsel for the respondent refuted the submissions and submitted that there is separate legislative intention of the provisions of Section 125 Cr. P.C. as well as Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and, therefore, both the proceedings can run concurrently. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shome Nikhil Danani Vs. Tanya Banon Danani (in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6005/2019). In this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the view of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in coming to the conclusion that mere passing of an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not preclude the respondent from seeking appropriate reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The order reads as follows :- "Having heard Ms Geeta Luthra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Ms Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court of Delhi was justified in coming to the conclusion that the mere passing of an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 did not preclude the respondent from seeking appropriate reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. Hence, we decline to entertain the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. Hence, we decline to entertain the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. However, we only clarify that any observations made by the High Court on the merits of the claim of the respondent under Section 23 shall not come in the way of the appropriate court taking a view on the merits of the matter. " Relevant portion of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered on 11.4.2019 in Criminal Rev. Pet. No.994/2018 read as follows :- "15. In the present proceedings under the DV Act, the Respondent has claimed residence order in the shared household and during arguments, alternatively claimed rental in lieu of the residence order in the shared household. 16. Section 20 DV Act reads as under: 20. Monetary reliefs. (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include but is not limited to (a) the loss of earnings; (b) the medical expenses; (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force. (2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. (3) ***** 17. Cleary the scope of Section 20 of the DV Act is much wider than that of Section 125 Cr.P.C. While Section 125 Cr.P.C talks only of maintenance, Section 20 DV Act stipulates payment of monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered as a result of the domestic violence including but not limited to loss of earning, medical expenses, loss caused due to destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of aggrieved person. Further, Section 20(1) (d) of the DV Act clearly provides that ' 'In proceedings under the DV Act, the magistrate may direct the Respondent to pay the maintenance to the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force. " 18. This clearly shows that an order under Section 20 DV Act is not restricted by an order under section 125 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court clearly erred in not appreciating the distinction between the two provisions and the reasoning is clouded by an impression that the respondent - wife in the application under section 23 was only seeking an order of maintenance, which is not the case. In her application under section 23 of the DV Act, the respondent wife has inter-alia sought residence rights under Section 19 and protection under Section 18 apart from the monetary relief under Section 20. 19. Reference may also be had to the Judgment of a coordinate bench of this court in Karamchand & Ors Vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr (2011) 181 DLT494 and of the Supreme Court of India in Juveria Abdul Majid Khan Patni Vs. AtiflqbalMasoori (2014) 10 SCC 736 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that monetary relief as stipulated under Section 20 is different from maintenance, which can be in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or any other law. 20. Further, it may be seen that proceeding under the DV Act and under section 125 Cr.P.C are independent of each other and have different scope, though there is an overlap. In so far as the overlap is concerned, law has catered for that eventuality and laid down that at the time of consideration of an application for grant of maintenance under DVAct, maintenance fixed under section 125 Cr.P.C shall be taken into account. 21. In so far as the overlap is concerned, law has catered for that eventuality and laid down that at the time of consideration of an application for grant of maintenance under DVAct, maintenance fixed under section 125 Cr.P.C shall be taken into account. 21. The Judgment in the case of Rachna Katuria Versus Ramesh Kathuria (supra) relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner to contend that DVAct does not create any additional right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person and if a woman had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined, she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the DVAct is per incurium as it does not notice the very provisions of Section 20 and 23 of DVAct. Further now the Supreme Court of India in Juveria Abdul Majid Khan Patni Vs Atif Iqbal Masoori (supra) has held that monetary relief under Section 20 DV Act is in addition to maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. 22. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Court in setting aside the order of the Trial Court and remitting the matter for reconsideration of the application of the Respondent. There is thus no merit in the Petition, the same is dismissed. " 6. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the precedent law cited by counsel for the respondent in Shome Nikhil Danani (supra) is holding the field in the present controversy, thus, the question as to whether order under Section 125 Cr. P.C., would preclude wife from seeking relief under Domestic Violence Act is answered by this Court as follows :- proceedings under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are different legal remedies, which can be separately issued and sought within the realm of law by the parties. 7. Thus, while following the precedent law of Shome Nikhil Danani (supra), this Court declares that the proceedings U/s.125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can run simultaneously. 8. In light of the aforesaid, the present misc. petition is dismissed.