ORDER : 1. By way of present application under sections 397 and 401 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to modify the order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2015, whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent wife was allowed and the order dated 01.08.2015 passed by the 14th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No. 272 of 2014 granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to respondent no. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- to respondent no. 3 was modified to the extent that maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month was awarded to respondent no. 2 and maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month was awarded to respondent no. 3. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant no. 1 herein and respondent no. 2 got married as per Hindu rites and rituals on 30.01.1989 at Rajkot. That, daughter named Nishma was born on 31.07.1991 and son named Vismay was born on 29.03.1994 out of their wedlock. That the applicant no. 1 is working as a civil engineer. Since, the marriage the applicant no. 1, his wife, his mother and their children are residing at petitioner’s residence at Nadiad. Moreover, the respondent no. 2 herein always had an aggressive behavior towards the present petitioner and his mother since the day they got married. It is the case of the applicants that respondent no. 2 started behaving very abnormally with the petitioner and her mother in law. She started quarreling with the petitioner over baseless and irrelevant issues as she was not able to maintain her mother in law, who was aged and need some care and attention. That constantly, for 9-10 years the respondent no. 2 continued to pressurize the petitioner that she cannot take care of his mother and therefore asked him either move in separate residence or keep his mother at an old age home. That the petitioner was becoming frustrated of his wife’s careless attitude towards her mother in law, however, as their marriage had been in subsistence for over 2 decades he tried to convince the respondent no. 2 herein that he cannot leave his mother and being an ideal daughter in law the respondent no. 2 is required to take care of her mother-in-law. Thereafter, respondent-wife filed Criminal Misc. 2 herein that he cannot leave his mother and being an ideal daughter in law the respondent no. 2 is required to take care of her mother-in-law. Thereafter, respondent-wife filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 272 of 2014 before the learned 14th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the documents on record, vide order dated 01.08.2015 passed an order awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- each to respondent nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, the said order was carried in Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2015 by respondent nos. 2 and 3 before the learned District and Sessions Court, Rajkot, wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot vide order dated 11.04.2019 partly allowed the Criminal Appeal and directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 and maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent no. 3 and also awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month towards house rent and Rs. 2,00,000/- as interim compensation to respondent no. 2. Hence, the present Criminal Revision is preferred by the applicants for quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Trivedi for the applicants has submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, Rajkot is contrary to the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the learned Judge has erred in fact and in law in passing an order of such exorbitant amount for the maintenance of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. That applicant herein and his mother are suffering from medical ailments and health related problems. He further submitted that there is no one to look after himself or his old mother and and they are surviving only one source of income. He submitted that as per the impugned order due to the amount of maintenance awarded, it would be insufficient for himself to meet with various responsibilities and expenses for routine course and other incidental expenses. He also submitted that the learned Judge has erred in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards maintenance to respondent no. 3 herein and also failed to consider the fact that respondent no. 3 has completed her studies and is currently working as an Assistant professor in R.H. Patel institute of Management, Kheda. He also submitted that the learned Judge has erred in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards maintenance to respondent no. 3 herein and also failed to consider the fact that respondent no. 3 has completed her studies and is currently working as an Assistant professor in R.H. Patel institute of Management, Kheda. That the learned Sessions Judge has erred in passing an order awarding Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance to respondent no. 3 in lieu of she pursuing her education, however, as stated above she has already completed her education. He also submitted that the applicant-husband is the sole earner who will have to maintain himself and his mother, whereas respondent no. 2-wife has multiple sources of income and her income tax returns are placed on record alongwith her rental income and also the income of daughter and son who are residing with respondent no. 2 herein. He further submitted that applicant no. 1 has taken various insurance policies in the name of his son and daughter for which he was paying regular premiums. He, therefore submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Nisarg Trivedi for the applicants drew the attention of this Court and relied upon Para No. 16 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dy. Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy held in Civil Appeal No. 5369 of 2017, which reads as under: “16. The review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent-wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 02.02.2015 awarding a maintenance of Rs. 16,000/- to the respondent-wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant-husband was getting a net salary of Rs. 63,842/- after deduction of Rs. 24,000/- on account of GPF and Rs. 12,000/- towards income-tax. In February, 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs. 95,527/-. Following Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari and Another, (1970) 3 SCC 129 , in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent-wife. 12,000/- towards income-tax. In February, 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs. 95,527/-. Following Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari and Another, (1970) 3 SCC 129 , in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent-wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependant on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February, 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs. 95,000/- per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs. 23,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife and son.” 6. Learned advocate Mr. D.K. Trivedi for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has objected to this application and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court is just and proper and this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court as there is no illegality committed by the learned Sessions Court. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Court has not erred in granting the monthly maintenance to the respondent nos. 2 and 3, however, the same may not be interfered with. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for respondents to dismiss this application. 7. Learned APP for the respondent-State has submitted that this Court may pass necessary orders. 8. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State and perused the material on record, it appears that respondent-wife preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act for maintenance, wherein the learned Trial Court Judge has passed interim order and awarded Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent no. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent no. 3 vide judgment and order dated 01.08.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. 5,000/- per month to respondent no. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent no. 3 vide judgment and order dated 01.08.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No. 272 of 2014, which was modified by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 11.04.2019 and directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 and maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent no. 3 and also awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month towards house rent. It also appears that the applicant no. 1-husband is president and approved Civil Engineer and Builder and land developer and doing work in the name and style of Aakar Builders at Nadiad. It also appears that the parties are staying with high status in the society. The applicant-husband has admitted in his reply that his yearly income is being Rs. 7,60,000/- and thus, the wife is entitled to at least 1/3rd of the monthly income to maintain her social status and to stay in the same life style of her husband. The daughter is also pursuing her higher education and thus, the daughter would also be entitled to the maintenance amount. The applicant no. 1-husband is responsible to maintain respondent no. 2-wife and respondent no. 3, which has been granted by the learned Sessions Court to the respondents, as monthly maintenance, is not sufficient to fulfill the basic essential needs of the present respondents. It also appears that the rates of the every thing is increasing day-by-day and there is a question of survival of the respondent-wife and daughter. It also appears that it is very difficult for the respondent no. 2 wife and daughter to maintain themselves without source of income and the respondents are not able to fulfill the basic needs, which are essential for their survival, and therefore, there is a question of survival of respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documentary evidence on record, I am of the view that judgment and order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Rajkot does not require any interference. 9. It would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant observations and findings of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shome Nikhil Danani vs. Tanya Banon Danai, 2019 Law Suit (Del) 1139, which reads as under: “6. 9. It would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant observations and findings of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shome Nikhil Danani vs. Tanya Banon Danai, 2019 Law Suit (Del) 1139, which reads as under: “6. Respondent-wife thereafter filed a petition under the DV Act alia seeking a right of residence. By order dated 06.04.2018, the Trial Court declined to grant monetary relief and also declined to pass any order for residence on the ground that the DV Act not contemplate restoration of possession but provided for alternate accommodation to be provided to the wife and the Respondent-wife had agreed to be compensated by payment of rental for alternative accommodation. The court further noticed that in the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. Respondent-wife had made a claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month towards rental and taking the same into account, the court under section 125 Cr.P.C. had awarded interim maintenance at Rs. 1,20,000/- thus she was not entitled to any order for residence or rental for alternative accommodation. 9. Reliance is placed on the decision of a coordinate bench of this court in Rachna Kathuria vs. Ramesh Kathuria, (2010) 173 DLT 289. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Respondent-wife suffered domestic violence and thus was entitled to monetary relief under the DV Act. Further it is submitted that the respondent had not only sought relief under section 20 also prayed for residence orders under section 19 and protection order under section 18 of DV Act, which are beyond the scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 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. (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. (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. Clearly 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. 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 and Others vs. State NCT of Delhi and Another, (2011) 181 DLT 494 and 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 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 vs. 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.” 10. Thus, considering the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, the impugned judgment and order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2015 is confirmed. The revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed. Notice discharged.