ORDER : Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. 1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in both the criminal revision petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For sake of convenience, CRR No. 936 of 2023 is being treated as lead case. 3. CRR No. 936 of 2023 has been preferred by husband assailing the order dated 25.07.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 190/2023 arising out of order dated 27.09.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) in M.J.C. Cr. Case No. 1121/2017, whereby the application filed by non-applicant/wife under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act has been allowed and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- to the non-applicant/wife and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the proceeding under Domestic Violence Act. Learned Family Court has also directed the husband to pay Rs. 7,000/- as maintenance to wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to two minor sons Rs. 5,000/- till they attain the age of majority. Learned Family Court has further directed for adjustment of the amount Rs. 2500/- granted to the wife under Section 125 of CrPC vide order dated 05.01.2016 as well as Rs. 2,000/- each of the sons which has been granted by the learned 3rd Additional Chief Family Court, Durg. The appellant has also assailed the order passed in Criminal Appeal Nol. 190 of 2023 by which the appeal filed by the applicant/husband has been dismissed. 4. CRR No. 409 of 2023 has been preferred by the applicants/wife & children assailing the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 292/2019, by which learned Family Court rejected the application filed under Section 127 (1) of the Cr.P.C. 5. The brief facts as reflected from records are that the marriage between Jitendra Banwakde & Savita Banwakde was solemnized in the year 2001 as per Hindu rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, Kapil Banwakde (son) & Harsh Banwakde were born. After sometime of their marriage, dispute arose between them due to which they are living separately and the children are living with wife in her parental house. After sometime of their marriage, dispute arose between them due to which they are living separately and the children are living with wife in her parental house. The applicant was neglecting the maintenance to non-applicants, therefore, they preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for maintenance which was allowed vide order dated 05.01.2016 passed by Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg and maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2000/- each per month to the children have been awarded. Thereafter the non-applicant has filed application under Section 127 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the awarded amount, which has been dismissed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) vide order dated 14.03.2023 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 292/2019. 6. In the meantime, the non-applicant/wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act which has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- has been granted to the non-applicant/wife vide order dated 27.09.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) in M.J.C. Cr. Case No. 1121/2017. But the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has not granted maintenance under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short Act), therefore, she has preferred an appeal before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2023. The said appeal has been allowed and directed for maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- to wife and Rs. 5,000/- each of sons, subject to the adjustment as mentioned in forgoing paragraph by this court. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to see that the non-applicant/wife has also filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and has claimed maintenance from the applicant and the same has been suppressed by the non-applicants before filing of application for Domestic Violence Act, thus he would submit that the impugned order suffers from concealment of facts on this count alone, therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. He would further submit that the amount awarded by the learned Family Court is higher side, as such the order passed by the Family Court deserves to be quashed. 8. He would further submit that the amount awarded by the learned Family Court is higher side, as such the order passed by the Family Court deserves to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/wife would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant/husband and would submit that the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Family Court wherein learned Family Court directed for adjustment of the amount granted under Section 125 CrPC suffers from perversity, illegality and liable to be set aside. He would further submit that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the non-applicant is working in C.A.D. Camp which is an enterprise of Government of India and is getting salary Rs. 52,552/- per month whereas the non-applicant/wife has no source of income, therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be enhanced. He would further submit that the learned Family Court has erred in dismissing the application under Section 127 (1) of the Cr.P.C. by holding that in the proceeding under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has allowed the maintenance amount of Rs. 9500/-, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for enhancement of maintenance amount. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and records of the trial Court with utmost satisfaction. 10. Considering the submission made by counsel for the applicant in CRR No. 936 of 2023 that the wife has not disclosed the fact that she is getting maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC therefore, entire order deserves to be rejected as grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC and grant of maintenance under Section 20 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is altogether different things. Section 20 of the Act, provides that monetary relief to the wife or any child of aggrieved person, as a result of domestic violence and such relief may include but is not limited too. Section 20 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 reads as under:- “Section 20. Section 20 of the Act, provides that monetary relief to the wife or any child of aggrieved person, as a result of domestic violence and such relief may include but is not limited too. Section 20 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 reads as under:- “Section 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 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) 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.” 11. From perusal of Section 20 of the Act, it is quite vivid that the legislature in its wisdom has provided monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act and has made specific provision and the relief which has been enumerated is not limited and can be granted any monetary relief which shall be adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. This provision has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajensh vs. Neha reported in 2021(2) SCC 324 and has examined the issue of overlapping jurisdiction between operation of statue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 50 to 61 and 128 has held as under:- “50. Section 26 of the D.V. Act provides that any relief available Under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding before a Civil Court, Family Court or Criminal Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 provides that the relief mentioned in Sub-section (1) may be sought in addition to, and alongwith any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in a suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal court. Section 26 (3) provides that in case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceeding other than proceedings under this Act, the aggrieved woman would be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief. 51. Section 36 provides that the D.V. Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. 2. Conflicting judgments on overlapping jurisdiction 52. Some High Courts have taken the view that since each proceeding is distinct and independent of the other, maintenance granted in one proceeding cannot be adjusted or set-off in the other. For instance, in Ashok Singh Pal v. Manjulata, MANU/MP/0007/2008 : AIR 2008 MP 139 the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the remedies available to an aggrieved person Under Section 24 of the HMA is independent of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In an application filed by the husband for adjustment of the amounts awarded in the two proceedings, it was held that the question as to whether adjustment is to be granted, is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised by the Court. In an application filed by the husband for adjustment of the amounts awarded in the two proceedings, it was held that the question as to whether adjustment is to be granted, is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised by the Court. There is nothing to suggest as a thumb Rule which lays down as a mandatory requirement that adjustment or deduction of maintenance awarded Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure must be off-set from the amount awarded Under Section 24 of the HMA, or vice versa. A similar view was taken by another single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mohan Swaroop Chauhan v. Mohini MANU/MP/1262/2015: (2016) 2 MP LJ 179. Similarly, the Calcutta High Court in Sujit Adhikari v. Tulika Adhikari held that adjustment is not a rule. It was held that the quantum of maintenance determined by the Court under HMA is required to be added to the quantum of maintenance Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. 53. A similar view has been taken in Chandra Mohan Das v. Tapati Das, wherein a challenge was made on the point that the Court ought to have adjusted the amount awarded in a proceeding Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, while determining the maintenance to be awarded Under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955. It was held that the quantum of maintenance determined Under Section 24 of HMA was to be paid in addition to the maintenance awarded in a proceeding Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. 54. the other hand, the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, have held that in case of parallel proceedings, adjustment or set-off must take place. The Bombay High Court in a well-reasoned judgment delivered in Vishal v. Aparna and Anr. has taken the correct view. The Court was considering the issue whether interim monthly maintenance awarded Under Section 23 r.w. Section 20 (1)(d) of the D.V. Act could be adjusted against the maintenance awarded Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. The Family Court held that the order passed under the D.V. Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure were both independent proceedings, and adjustment was not permissible. The Family Court held that the order passed under the D.V. Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure were both independent proceedings, and adjustment was not permissible. The Bombay High Court set aside the judgment of the Family Court, and held that Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act makes it clear that the maintenance granted under this Act, would be in addition to an order of maintenance Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, and any other law for the time being in force. Sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the D.V. Act enjoins upon the aggrieved person to inform the Magistrate, if she has obtained any relief available Under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, in any other legal proceeding filed by her, whether before a Civil Court, Family Court, or Criminal Court. The object being that while granting relief under the D.V. Act, the Magistrate shall take into account and consider if any similar relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person. Even though proceedings under the D.V. Act may be an independent proceeding, the Magistrate cannot ignore the maintenance awarded in any other legal proceedings, while determining whether over and above the maintenance already awarded, any further amount was required to be granted for reasons to be recorded in writing. The Court observed: “18. What I intend to emphasize is the fact that the adjustment is permissible and the adjustment can be allowed of the lower amount against the higher amount. Though the wife can simultaneously claim maintenance under the different enactments, it does not in any way mean that the husband can be made liable to pay the maintenance awarded in each of the said proceedings. (emphasis supplied) It was held that while determining the quantum of maintenance awarded Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate would take into consideration the interim maintenance awarded to the aggrieved woman under the D.V. Act. 55. The issue of overlapping jurisdictions under the HMA and D.V. Act or Code of Criminal Procedure came up for consideration before a division bench of the Delhi High Court in RD v. BD MANU/DE/2483/2019 : 2019 VII AD (Delhi) 466 wherein the Court held that maintenance granted to an aggrieved person under the D.V. Act, would be in addition to an order of maintenance Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, or under the HMA. The legislative mandate envisages grant of maintenance to the wife under various statutes. It was not the intention of the legislature that once an order is passed in either of the maintenance proceedings, the order would debar re-adjudication of the issue of maintenance in any other proceeding. In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment, it was observed that: “16. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Sections 20, 26 and 36 of DV Act would clearly establish that the provisions of DV Act dealing with maintenance are supplementary to the provisions of other laws and therefore maintenance can be granted to the aggrieved person (s) under the DV Act which would also be in addition to any order of maintenance arising out of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. On the converse, if any order is passed by the Family Court Under Section 24 of HMA, the same would not debar the Court in the proceedings arising out of DV Act or proceedings Under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure instituted by the wife/aggrieved person claiming maintenance. However, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once an order of maintenance has been passed by any Court then the same cannot be re-adjudicated upon by any other Court. The legislative mandate envisages grant of maintenance to the wife under various statutes such as HMA, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'HAMA'), Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Section 20 of DV Act. As such various statutes have been enacted to provide for the maintenance to the wife and it is nowhere the intention of the legislature that once any order is passed in either of the proceedings, the said order would debar re adjudication of the issue of maintenance in any other Court. (emphasis supplied) The Court held that Under Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act, maintenance awarded to the aggrieved woman under the D.V. is in addition to an order of maintenance provided Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. The grant of maintenance under the D.V. Act would not be a bar to seek maintenance Under Section 24 of HMA. 56. Similarly, in Tanushree and Ors. The grant of maintenance under the D.V. Act would not be a bar to seek maintenance Under Section 24 of HMA. 56. Similarly, in Tanushree and Ors. v. A.S. Moorthy the Delhi High Court was considering a case where the Magistrate's Court had sine die adjourned the proceedings Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that parallel proceedings for maintenance under the D.V. Act were pending. In an appeal filed by the wife before the High Court, it was held that a reading of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act indicates that while considering an application Under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the Court would take into account an order of maintenance passed Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, or any other law for the time being in force. The mere fact that two proceedings were initiated by a party, would not imply that one would have to be adjourned sine die. There is a distinction in the scope and power exercised by the Magistrate Under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure and the D.V. Act. With respect to the overlap in both statutes, the Court held: “5. Reading of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act further shows that the two proceedings are independent of each other and have different scope, though there is an overlap. Insofar 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 Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the maintenance fixed Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be taken into account. (emphasis supplied) 57. The issue whether maintenance Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure could be awarded by the Magistrate, after permanent alimony was granted to the wife in the divorce proceedings, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Rakesh Malhotra v. Krishna Malhotra. The Court held that once an order for permanent alimony was passed, the same could be modified by the same court by exercising its power Under Section 25(2) of HMA. The Court held that: “16. The Court held that once an order for permanent alimony was passed, the same could be modified by the same court by exercising its power Under Section 25(2) of HMA. The Court held that: “16. Since the Parliament has empowered the Court Under Section 25(2) of the Act and kept a remedy intact and made available to the concerned party seeking modification, the logical sequitur would be that the remedy so prescribed ought to be exercised rather than creating multiple channels of remedy seeking maintenance. One can understand the situation where considering the exigencies of the situation and urgency in the matter, a wife initially prefers an application Under Section 125 of the Code to secure maintenance in order to sustain herself. In such matters the wife would certainly be entitled to have a full-fledged adjudication in the form of any challenge raised before a Competent Court either under the Act Or similar such enactments. But the reverse cannot be the accepted norm. The Court directed that the application Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure be treated as an application Under Section 25(2) of HMA and be disposed of accordingly. 58. In Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma MANU/SC/0248/2013 : (2014) 14 SCC 452 this Court considered a case where the wife instituted a suit Under Section 18 of HAMA, after signing a consent letter in proceedings Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that she would not make any further claims for maintenance against the husband. It was held that the proceedings Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure were summary in nature, and were intended to provide a speedy remedy to the wife. Any order passed Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure by compromise or otherwise would not foreclose the remedy Under Section 18 of HAMA. 59. In Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary MANU/SC/1699/1997 : (1997) 11 SCC 286 the Supreme Court directed adjustment in a case where the wife had filed an application Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and under HMA. In the Section 125 proceedings, she had obtained an order of maintenance. Subsequently, in proceedings under the HMA, the wife sought alimony. Since the husband failed to pay maintenance awarded, the wife initiated recovery proceedings. In the Section 125 proceedings, she had obtained an order of maintenance. Subsequently, in proceedings under the HMA, the wife sought alimony. Since the husband failed to pay maintenance awarded, the wife initiated recovery proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the maintenance awarded Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure must be adjusted against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings under HMA, and was not to be given over and above the same. 3. Directions on overlapping jurisdictions 60. It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant. 61. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the Applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding. (a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction 128. (i) To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. (a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction 128. (i) To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that: 128.1 where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or set- off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding; 128.2 (ii) it is made mandatory for the Applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding; 128.3 (iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajensh (supra ) has also directed for taking into consideration the amount of maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceedings and determined the maintenance payable to the claimant. The learned Family Court while allowing the maintenance to the wife and children has categorically directed for adjustment of the amount which has been granted to the wife and children under Section 125 of the CrPC. Thus, the amount which has been granted under the different Act has already been adjusted by the Family Court, accordingly, it has passed the impugned order. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court on 25.07.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2022 does not suffer from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, CRR No. 936 of 2023 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. So far as CRR No. 409 of 2023 arising out of the Misc. Criminal Case No. 292 of 2019 is concerned, learned Family Court has declined to enhance the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6500/- which cannot be held to suffer from perversity or illegality. The applicant and his sons have been granted adequate maintenance by the Courts. Even otherwise, it is well settled legal position of law that the maintenance amount cannot be bonanza but it should be looking to the living standard which the parties are living and should proportionate to expenditure required for maintenance of wife. The applicant and his sons have been granted adequate maintenance by the Courts. Even otherwise, it is well settled legal position of law that the maintenance amount cannot be bonanza but it should be looking to the living standard which the parties are living and should proportionate to expenditure required for maintenance of wife. Considering this aspect of the matter, it cannot be said that the maintenance amount awarded to the applicant is on lower side which requires enhancement. Accordingly, CRR No. 409 of 2023 also deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.