JUDGMENT : SAMIR J. DAVE, J. 1. By way of present application, the applicants have prayed to modify judgment and order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 665 of 2017 and further prayed to enhance the amount of maintenance. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 1 was solemnized at Vadodara on 08.05.2022 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. The applicant no. 1 states that out of the said wedlock, applicant no. 1 gave birth to a daughter named Divya on 20.07.2003. Initially the marriage life of applicant no. 1 was going on smoothly, but after some time, the respondent no. 1 started giving physical and mental tortured to the applicant no. 1 and pursuant thereof, some litigation were also filed in the different courts. The applicants preferred Criminal Misc. application No. 470 of 2007 was filed for maintenance and vide order dated 31.03.2008 the learned Trial Court, Vadodara granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the applicant no. 1 and Rs.6,00/- per month to applicant no. 2. Thereafter, the applicants has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 313 of 2012 for enhancement of maintenance amount and vide order dated 10.12.2015, the amount of Rs.3,000/- to the applicant no. 1 and Rs.1,500/- to applicant no. 2 towards maintenance was granted. Thereafter, the applicants have preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 665/2017 for enhancement of maintenance amount and as per order dated 05.11.2019, the learned Family Court, Vadodara enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.4,500/- from Rs.3,000/- to applicant no. 1 and Rs.3,500/- from Rs.1,500/- to applicant no. 2. Hence, the present application is preferred by the applicants for enhancement of maintenance amount granted by the learned Family Court, Vadodara. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Alkesh Shah for the applicants has submitted that the order passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara is contrary to the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that respondent no. 1 has not disclosed his salary in his reply or in his Chief Examination or in his cross-examination, however, his employer has produced salary slips, which narrates his monthly salary of Rs.32,499/-. Though considering the income of respondent no. He further submitted that respondent no. 1 has not disclosed his salary in his reply or in his Chief Examination or in his cross-examination, however, his employer has produced salary slips, which narrates his monthly salary of Rs.32,499/-. Though considering the income of respondent no. 1, the learned Family Court did not grant the maintenance of Rs.16,000/- per month and granted maintenance of Rs.8,000/- qua both the applicants. He submitted that the learned JMFC Court passed order of house rent of Rs.5,000/- per month under the Domestic Violence Act. However, while passing the impugned order the learned Family Court has observed that the amount of house of rent of Rs.5,000/- will be deducted from total amount of maintenance granted by the learned Family Court, thus, the effective amount of maintenance as per the impugned order is Rs.3,000/-, which is lower than the earlier order of maintenance of Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, the such observation made by the learned Family Court is contrary to the law and equity and required to be removed. He therefore requested that the amount of maintenance be enhance to Rs.10,000/- for applicant no. 1 and Rs.6,000/- to applicant no. 2 except house rent of Rs.5,000/- granted under the Domestic Violence Act. It is further submitted that the amount, which has been granted by the learned Family Court to the applicants, as monthly maintenance, is not sufficient to fulfill the basic essential needs of the present applicants. It is further submitted that the rates of the every things are increasing day-by-day and there is a question of survival of the applicants and at present, applicant no. 2-daughter is aged studying in 11th standard and her education expenses are increasing day-by-day. It is further submitted that the respondent-husband is earning handsome income and he does not have any responsibility of any other family members. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for the applicants to allow this application by modifying the judgment and order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 665 of 2017. It is further requested by learned advocate for the applicants to enhance the monthly maintenance granted by the learned Family Court. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Application No. 665 of 2017. It is further requested by learned advocate for the applicants to enhance the monthly maintenance granted by the learned Family Court. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Manoj Danak for respondent-husband has objected to this application and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper and this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court as there is no illegality committed by the learned Family Court. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has not erred in granting the monthly maintenance to the applicants. Further, the respondent-husband is not earning handsome income as per the say of applicant no. 1-wife and the respondent-husband is having responsibility of his aged mother and sister. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for respondent no. 2 to dismiss this application. 6. Learned APP for the respondent-State has submitted that this Court may pass necessary orders. 7. 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 applicants preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for maintenance, wherein applicant no. 1 was granted maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month and applicant no. 2 was granted maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month vide impugned judgment and order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 665 of 2017. It also appears that the respondent-husband is responsible to maintain the minor daughter-applicant no. 2 till she attains majority and the amount, which has been granted by the learned Family Court to the applicants, as monthly maintenance, is not sufficient to fulfill the basic essential needs of the present applicants. It also appears that the rates of the every things is increasing day-by-day and there is a question of survival of the applicants and at present, applicant no. 2-daughter is studying in 11th standard and also education expenses of the applicant no. 2 are increasing day-by-day. It also appears that the respondent-husband is earning handsome income and it is difficult for applicant no. 1 to maintain herself and her daughter without source of income and the daughter is residing with applicant no. 2-daughter is studying in 11th standard and also education expenses of the applicant no. 2 are increasing day-by-day. It also appears that the respondent-husband is earning handsome income and it is difficult for applicant no. 1 to maintain herself and her daughter without source of income and the daughter is residing with applicant no. 1 and the applicants are not able to fulfill the basic needs, which are essential for their survival, and therefore, there is a question of survival for the wife and daughter. Therefore, the judgment and order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 665 of 2017 deserves to be modified by enhancing the maintenance to the applicants. 8. 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 . 10. 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. 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 subsection (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. (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. 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 and Others vs. State NCT of Delhi and Another, (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 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. 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.” 9. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 665 of 2017 is ordered to be modified to the extent that the respondent-husband is directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred only) per month to applicant no. 1 by way of maintenance regularly and an amount of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred only) per month to applicant no. 2-daughter by way of maintenance regularly from the date of application dated 20.06.2017 without deducting an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards house rent granted under the Domestic Violence Act. In all the respondent no. 1-husband shall pay total amount of maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the applicants over and above and amount of Rs.5,000/- house rent granted under the Domestic Violence Act. 10. The present application is partly allowed and the same is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.