Judgment 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioners have sought the following reliefs:— “(i) Quashing of order dated 07.02.2017 passed by the court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu in petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. titled, “Divya Gupta versus Varun Slathia”. (ii) Quashing of order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu in application under section 23 of the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2010 titled, “Divya Gupta versus Varun Slathia and others”. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioners in the instant petition, are that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was love-cum-arrange one and was solemnized at Jammu on 27.01.2014, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies in presence of respectable persons and relatives of the parties. Though the marriage was duly consummated, but no issue has been born out of the said wedlock. After the marriage, the petitioner No.1 and the respondent stayed together as husband and wife at House No. 13-B(s), Karan Nagar Jammu. The petitioner No.1 has high hopes and aspirations of peaceful married life with the respondent. This apart, petitioner No.1 was not only hoping but anxiously looking forward to a life full of mirth and merriment, mutual love and devotion. However, the high hopes entertained by him dashed to ground when the respondent on one pretext or the other started treating him with both mental as well as physical cruelty. The respondent stayed in her matrimonial home hardly for 2-3 months and rest she was staying with petitioner No. 1 for 11 months in Mumbai and ultimately left for matrimonial home on the pretext that her mother had a dog bite and then switched off her phones and told the petitioner No.1 in unequivocal terms that she will not come back. Despite the fact that petitioner No.1 made all possible efforts to get her back to the matrimonial home, but the respondent has shown her pure obstinate and arrogant nature and has never returned to her matrimonial home. Moreover, the respondent and her family members started quarrelling and abusing the petitioner No.1 and his family members without any justified reasons. 3. It is further submitted that because of the unwillingness of respondent, no issue has been born out of the said wedlock. Moreover, the respondent and her family members started quarrelling and abusing the petitioner No.1 and his family members without any justified reasons. 3. It is further submitted that because of the unwillingness of respondent, no issue has been born out of the said wedlock. She had openly declared that she does not want to have a child out of the said wedlock. The petitioner No.1 performed all his obligations and fulfilled all the marital obligations and did every needful act for respondent’s convenience. It is further submitted that one day, the respondent even threatened the petitioner No.1 to either leave her or else she would commit suicide. Somehow, the petitioner No.1 managed to pull her out of dying loop and made all efforts to save the marriage. It is also submitted that the respondent, in fact, is not mentally stable as she used to give threats to the petitioner No1. and his family members and furthermore she used to abuse and fight miserably with the petitioners. The respondent has filed two cases contemporarily, that is, a complaint under the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2010 titled, “Divya Gupta versus Varun Slathia and ors.” before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu; and another petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C titled, “Divya Gupta versus Varun Slathia” before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu. 4. It is further submitted that the respondent has also arrayed the old-aged parents of petitioner No.1 in false and frivolous complaint under the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010, which is a clear act of cruelty on the part of respondent against the petitioners, who always tried to sort out the issue sincerely, which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and in the Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu. It is also submitted that the learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu in a case filed by the respondent under Section 488 Cr.P.C vide order dated 07.02.2017 directed the petitioner No.1 to pay Rs.7000/- as interim maintenance to the respondent and the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu vide order dated 20.03.2017 directed the petitioner No. 1 to pay Rs.8000/- as interim maintenance. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled ‘Parkash Bubulal Dangi Vs. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled ‘Parkash Bubulal Dangi Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.’ (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.10280-10281/2017) has passed the interim order dated 10.01.2018 whereby the maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr. P.C. has been stayed and the petitioner therein was directed to pay maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act only. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. From bare perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it is evident that respondent herein filed a petition under section 488 Cr.P.C. before the learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu for grant of maintenance in terms of Section 488 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner No.1 herein. An application for interim maintenance was also filed. Petitioner no.1 herein filed objections and Court below after hearing the parties passed an order dated 07.02.2017 thereby granting interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.7000/- per month in favour of respondent from the date of application. The relevant paras of the order read as under:— “The purpose of Section 488 Cr.P.C. is to provide relief to such persons who are unable to maintain themselves and neglected by the persons having sufficient means to maintain them. The provision of this section is to prevent the vagrancy. The basic object of this section is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect to his wife, children and parents. By providing relief under this section is to ensure that the neglected wife and children are not left destitute and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. The basic aim of these provisions is to ensure that the minimum needs of food, shelter and clothing is paid summarily to the wife, children or parents in order to save them from starvation. Taking into consideration what has been discussed herein above, at this stage the Court has to appreciate few things for the grant of interim maintenance. From the pleadings, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a prima-facie case that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent having no source of income and is living at her parental house. The allegations and counter allegations leveled by petitioner and respondent cannot be appreciated at this stage without adducing evidence. From the pleadings, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a prima-facie case that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent having no source of income and is living at her parental house. The allegations and counter allegations leveled by petitioner and respondent cannot be appreciated at this stage without adducing evidence. Therefore, the petitioner is held entitled to get the interim maintenance from the respondent till the final disposal of the main petition. In these circumstances, the respondent is directed to pay an interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to petitioner form the date of the application i.e., 11.11.2016. It is further directed that the respondent will deposit the said amount in petitioner’s account No. 10167870130, State Bank of India, Branch Channi Himmat, Jammu in every first week of the month furnished by petitioner in the Court. The application is accordingly disposed off and shall from part of the main petition/application.” 7. It further appears that respondent also filed a petition under Sections 12 and 23 of Domestic Violence Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, in which the petitioners herein appeared and also filed objections and the Court below on 20.03.2017 directed the petitioner No.1 to pay Rs.8000/- per month as interim maintenance. The relevant paras read as under:— “During the course of arguments the Ld. Counsel for the respondents has produced the photo copy of the order dated 7-02-2017 passed by 3rd Addl. Munsiff, Jammu in the Petition U/s 488 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner against the respondent No:1, whereby the respondent was directed to pay an interim maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of the application. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is also conceding the fact that the petitioner has been granted the interim maintenance of Rs. 7000/-per month in the proceedings U/S 488 Cr.P.C. pending before the Court of 3rdAddl.Munsiff, Jammu. Though the grant of interim maintenance in the proceedings U/S488 Cr.P.C. would not debarred the petitioner to claim additional maintenance from the Respondent No:1 in the instant proceedings under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, but the said part of interim maintenance granted U/S 488Cr.P.C would also required to be considered for the purpose of deciding the quantum of maintenance to be granted in favour of the petitioner. In the instant case the Respondent No.1 is admittedly employed in the Merchant Navy as Chief Officer and this fact has not been denied by the Respondents in their objections. The petitioner in her petition has claimed at least Rs.1,00,000/- as a monthly maintenance for her food, clothing, medication and other basic necessities and according to her the Respondent No:1 is financially able to provide such amount of maintenance to her. The Respondent on the other hand has not repelled the contention of petitioner so far as mis financial capacity is concerned. Otherwise also when we take a judicial notice of the fact that the Respondent No:1 is working as a Chief Officer in the Merchant Navy he must be drawing his salary in lacs and as such, the petitioner being his wife is also entitled for the maintenance amount as per the status of the Respondent No.1. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already been granted the interim maintenance of Rs. 7000/- in the petition U/S 488 Cr.P.C. filed by her against the Respondent No.1, I find that the additional amount of Rs.8000/- per month would be sufficient for the petitioner to maintain her livelihood in a dignified manner. Hence, this petition is allowed and the Respondent No:1 is directed to pay Rs. 8000/- per month to the petitioner as a monthly maintenance from the date of filing of the present petition. This petition U/S 23 of Domestic Violence Act is disposed off accordingly and the same shall form part of the main petition” 8. The foremost ground taken in this petition is that respondent is not entitled to maintenance under two different laws against the petitioner no.1 herein. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an interim order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2018 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 10280-10281/2017 in case titled Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr., wherein the following order has been passed “Issue notice. In the meantime the operation of the impugned judgment (s) and order (s) shall remain stayed, subject to the petitioner’s continuing to pay maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, as ordered earlier.” 9. 10280-10281/2017 in case titled Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr., wherein the following order has been passed “Issue notice. In the meantime the operation of the impugned judgment (s) and order (s) shall remain stayed, subject to the petitioner’s continuing to pay maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, as ordered earlier.” 9. He has also riled upon decision of Delhi High Court in Crl.M.C. No. 130/2010 and Crl.M.A. No.504/2010 dated 30.08.2010, titled, Rachna Kathuria versus Ramesh Kathuria, wherein it is held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act, 2005 does not create any additional right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person. The relevant para reads as under:— “It must be understood that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not create any additional right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person. Only puts the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available to an aggrieved person on fast track. If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined by a competent court either in Civil Suit or by Court of MM in an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the Act. The Court of MM under the Act has power to grant maintenance and monetary reliefs on an interim basis in a fast track manner only in those cases where woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under Civil Court or under Section 125 Cr.P.C. If the woman has already moved Court and her right of maintenance has been adjudicated by a competent Civil Court or by a competent Court of MM under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for any enhancement of maintenance already granted, she will have to move the same Court and she cannot approach MM under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by way of an application of interim or final nature to grant additional maintenance. This petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.” 10. The Jammu and Kashmir (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence) Act 2010 has been legislated for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under Constitution, who are victim of violence. This petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.” 10. The Jammu and Kashmir (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence) Act 2010 has been legislated for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under Constitution, who are victim of violence. Section 12 of Act empowers victim to file a petition before Magistrate regarding domestic violence; section 18 deals with passing of protection order; section 19 deals with passing of residence order; section 20 deals with passing of monetary order; section 21 deals with passing of custody order and section 22 deals with compensation order. These types of order can be passed/ granted by Magistrate after hearing and finally deciding the application under sections 12 of Act. The term Domestic Violence has been given a specific connotation under Section 3 of the Act. 11. Domestic violence is not physical violence alone. Domestic violence is any behaviour the purpose of which is to gain power and control over a spouse. Physical abuse can include hitting, biting, slapping, battering, shoving, punching, pulling hair, burning, cutting, pinching, etc. (any type of violent behavior inflicted on the victim). Physical abuse also includes denying someone medical treatment and forcing drug/alcohol use on someone. Sexual abuse occurs when the abuser coerces or attempts to coerce the victim into having sexual contact or sexual behavior without the victim’s consent. This often takes the form of marital rape, attacking sexual body parts, physical violence that is followed by forcing sex, sexually demeaning the victim, or even telling sexual jokes at the victim’s expense. Emotional abuse involves invalidating or deflating the victim’s sense of self-worth and/or self-esteem. Emotional abuse often takes the form of constant criticism, name-calling, injuring the victim’s relationship with his/her children, or interfering with the victim’s abilities. Economic abuse takes place when the abuser makes or tries to make the victim financially reliant. Economic abusers often seek to maintain total control over financial resources, withhold the victim’s access to funds, or prohibit the victim from going to school or work. 12. Section 20 of D.V Act deals with monetary relief. It reads as under:— “20. Economic abuse takes place when the abuser makes or tries to make the victim financially reliant. Economic abusers often seek to maintain total control over financial resources, withhold the victim’s access to funds, or prohibit the victim from going to school or work. 12. Section 20 of D.V Act deals with monetary relief. It 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 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 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989 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) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. (4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under sub section (1) to the parties to the application and to the in charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides. (5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1). (6) Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.” 13. From bare perusal of this section, it is evident that while granting Monterey relief whether interim (section 23 of Act) or final for the aggrieved person, the court can grant the same separately or in addition to maintenance already granted under section 488 Cr.P.C. 14. In view of above statutory provisions, the orders impugned do not suffer from any infirmity of law. Further, Delhi High Court recently in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.994/2018 in case titled Shome Nikhil Danani Vs. Tanya Banon Danani, decided on 11.04.2019 has held as under:— “19. Reference may also be had to the Judgment of a coordinate bench of this court in Karamchand and Ors Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr (2011) 181 DLT 494 and of the Supreme Court of India in Juveria Abdul Majid Khan Patni Vs Atif Iqbal Masoori (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 DV Act, 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 DV Act 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 DV Act is per incurium as it does not notice the very provisions of Section 20 and 23 of DV Act. 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. 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.” 15. In view of above law (Shome Nikhil Danani’s case), which is based upon Supreme Court judgment in case titled Juveria Abdul Majid Khan Patni Vs Atif Iqbal Masoori (2014) 10 SCC 736 , the arguments of counsel for petitioners as well as law cited are not applicable. Further, plea of counsel for petitioners that Apex Court in case Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. (supra) has stayed one of maintenances granted by trial Court, so other maintenance has to go, is not tenable because interim order passed by Apex court in any case does not settle any law point; interim orders always passed in the facts and circumstances of that case only. It is not the precedent law binding on the subordinate courts. 16. In view of above, this petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, is vacated.