Mohit Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others) it appears that application u/s

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the respondent no. 2 has lodged several civil and criminal cases against the revisionist just to harass him; the revisionist is himself victim of cruelty meted out to him by his wife and in-laws; she has leveled bald allegations in two FIRs lodged against the revisionist and his family members without any substance. He further submitted that apart from the present case, the respondent no. 2 has filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the family court seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son Vardan Mohit Tiwari, which was decided ex-parte on 6.5.2022 directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 6,000/- to the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to applicant no. 2 from the date of filing of application in the year 2017. The revisionist has filed application for setting aside the ex- parte judgement and order, which was allowed by the court below subject to deposit of security amount of Rs. 1,53,000/- within 15 days. In another order dated 17.8.2023 the revisionist has been directed to deposit security amount within 30 days either in installment or in one stroke; the revisionist has assailed said orders before this Court by filing application under section 482 no. 34234 of 2023 which was decided by order dated 18.10.2023 with direction that if the applicant deposits Rs. 1,53,000/- (adjusting the amount already deposited, after order dated 25.7.2023) in two installment within a month, learned court below shall proceed and decide the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both parties within a period of four months. He next submitted that after passing of aforesaid order by this Court, learned court below has decided the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. on merits vide judgement and order dated 28.2.2024 during pendency of present revision; the family court has awarded maintenance to the applicant no. 1 a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant no. 2 from the date of filing of application upto date of judgement and thereafter @ Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicants as future maintenance. It is directed in the said order that security amount deposited by opposite party as a condition of restoration of maintenance case, would be liable to be adjusted towards maintenance in the said judgement dated 28.2.2024. He next submitted that the revisionist is not employed anywhere. He has one share in his ancestral agricultural land as he has total 08 brothers; it is not possible for the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicants from the meagre income derived by him from agricultural activities. He next submitted that the applicant Smt. Sangita who is wife of revisionist has deserted the revisionist out of her own choice and started living separately at her parental place for no fault of the revisionist; the revisionist has paid total Rs. 2,33,000/- towards maintenance awarded in compliance of maintenance order under section 125 Cr.P.C. and only Rs. 50,000/- remains, which will be paid to the respondent no. 2 in shortly. No proper opportunity of hearing was accorded to the revisionist in proceeding under section 12 of the Act; his counsel could not appear in the case as the counsel was arrested and imprisoned in some personal case; the revisionist was not aware of the fact that his counsel was not appearing in the case and the case proceeded ex-parte against him; the matter deserves to be remanded to the court below for deciding afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties otherwise revisionist will suffer irreparable loss. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that two criminal cases were lodged against the revisionist and his family members by the respondent no. 2. In one case, charge-sheet has been filed and in another case, police has submitted final report in his favour. He next submitted that only Rs. 2,18,000/- has been paid by the revisionist to the applicant pursuant to various orders passed regarding maintenance in different proceedings; the revisionist has filed divorce petition against the respondent no. 2 and Rs. 12,000/- was paid by the revisionist to the applicant in said proceeding and after counting that amount, figure come to Rs. 2,33,000/- as claimed by the revisionist as amount paid to the applicant; the revisionist has filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act which was dismissed in default. He lastly submitted that the ex-parte judgement and order passed by the court below is well reasoned and appeal preferred by the revisionist against said ex-parte order has been dismissed by the learned appellate court with reasoned order and no interference is needed in present revision in respect of the orders passed by the court below. From perusal of record it appears that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with respondent no. 2 according to Hindu rites and rituals on 14.12.2015; couple was blessed with son namely Vardan Mohit Tiwari out of wedlock. However, relationship between the spouse got sour in course to time due to matrimonial discord; the respondent no. 2 filed maintenance case under section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided ex-parte against the revisionist vide judgement and order dated 6.5.2022 whereby a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was awarded to the applicant and Rs. 3,000/- to her minor son as monthly maintenance from the date of filing of application; the said ex-parte judgement and order was set aside on application of the revisionist subject to deposit Rs. 1,53,000/- as security amount; the respondent no. 2 filed complaint under section 12 of Protection of Domestic Violence Act in the year 2018 in which she has impleaded her husband and in-laws, total 08 persons as respondents; said case under the Domestic Violence Act has been decided by the impugned judgement and order dated 11.7.2022 by learned trial court whereby Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded as maintenance to the applicant for herself and her minor son; apart from maintenance, Rs. 30,000/- has also been awarded as lump-sum payment to the applicant as damages for suffering mental emotional and physical harassment; the revisionist Mohit Tiwari assailed the judgement and order passed by learned magistrate before the appellate court but same was dismissed by judgement and order dated 17.1.2024 and the order of learned Magistrate has been affirmed. From perusal of order dated 18.10.2023 passed in Application u/s 482 No. 34234 of 2023 (Mohit Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others) it appears that application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed against the order dated 25.7.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, family court in proceeding under section 126 Cr.P.C. has been disposed of with observation that if the applicant deposits Rs. 1,53,000/- (adjusting the amount already deposited after order dated 25.7.2023) in two installments within a month, the learned court below shall proceed and decide the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both parties within a period of four months. A copy of judgement and order dated 28.2.2024 has been filed on behalf of revisionist in present revision which shows that maintenance case under section 125 Cr.P.C. has been decided by family court and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance to the applicant nos. 1 and 2 from the date of filing of application to the date of judgement and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of judgement. It is also observed that the applicant no. 2 shall receive maintenance till attainment of his majority and Rs. 1,53,000/- deposited as security for restoration of maintenance case will be liable to be adjusted. Therefore, it appears that in the proceeding under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, total Rs. 7,000/- has been awarded as maintenance to the applicant for herself and her minor son and in proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. the applicants have been awarded Rs. 9,000/- per month in toto as maintenance thus amount awarded as maintenance in proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. is higher than the amount awarded as maintenance in the impugned order. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 clarified that 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 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; 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.it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding. On perusal of material on record and the impugned judgement and order passed by the court at district level, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned courts below. The revision is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. However, it is directed that the trial court shall comply with the above direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha while enforcing the impugned judgement and order and the amount paid in proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance of revisionist shall be liable to be adjusted towards any sum of money outstanding to be paid in proceeding under the Act and learned trial court shall be at liberty to ensure that revisionist is not being saddled with paying maintenance in both proceedings simultaneously. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the respondent no. 2 has lodged several civil and criminal cases against the revisionist just to harass him; the revisionist is himself victim of cruelty meted out to him by his wife and in-laws; she has leveled bald allegations in two FIRs lodged against the revisionist and his family members without any substance. He further submitted that apart from the present case, the respondent no. 2 has filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the family court seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son Vardan Mohit Tiwari, which was decided ex-parte on 6.5.2022 directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 6,000/- to the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to applicant no. 2 from the date of filing of application in the year 2017. The revisionist has filed application for setting aside the ex- parte judgement and order, which was allowed by the court below subject to deposit of security amount of Rs. 1,53,000/- within 15 days. In another order dated 17.8.2023 the revisionist has been directed to deposit security amount within 30 days either in installment or in one stroke; the revisionist has assailed said orders before this Court by filing application under section 482 no. 34234 of 2023 which was decided by order dated 18.10.2023 with direction that if the applicant deposits Rs. 1,53,000/- (adjusting the amount already deposited, after order dated 25.7.2023) in two installment within a month, learned court below shall proceed and decide the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both parties within a period of four months. He next submitted that after passing of aforesaid order by this Court, learned court below has decided the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. on merits vide judgement and order dated 28.2.2024 during pendency of present revision; the family court has awarded maintenance to the applicant no. 1 a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant no. 2 from the date of filing of application upto date of judgement and thereafter @ Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicants as future maintenance. It is directed in the said order that security amount deposited by opposite party as a condition of restoration of maintenance case, would be liable to be adjusted towards maintenance in the said judgement dated 28.2.2024. He next submitted that the revisionist is not employed anywhere. He has one share in his ancestral agricultural land as he has total 08 brothers; it is not possible for the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicants from the meagre income derived by him from agricultural activities. He next submitted that the applicant Smt. Sangita who is wife of revisionist has deserted the revisionist out of her own choice and started living separately at her parental place for no fault of the revisionist; the revisionist has paid total Rs. 2,33,000/- towards maintenance awarded in compliance of maintenance order under section 125 Cr.P.C. and only Rs. 50,000/- remains, which will be paid to the respondent no. 2 in shortly. No proper opportunity of hearing was accorded to the revisionist in proceeding under section 12 of the Act; his counsel could not appear in the case as the counsel was arrested and imprisoned in some personal case; the revisionist was not aware of the fact that his counsel was not appearing in the case and the case proceeded ex-parte against him; the matter deserves to be remanded to the court below for deciding afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties otherwise revisionist will suffer irreparable loss. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that two criminal cases were lodged against the revisionist and his family members by the respondent no. 2. In one case, charge-sheet has been filed and in another case, police has submitted final report in his favour. He next submitted that only Rs. 2,18,000/- has been paid by the revisionist to the applicant pursuant to various orders passed regarding maintenance in different proceedings; the revisionist has filed divorce petition against the respondent no. 2 and Rs. 12,000/- was paid by the revisionist to the applicant in said proceeding and after counting that amount, figure come to Rs. 2,33,000/- as claimed by the revisionist as amount paid to the applicant; the revisionist has filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act which was dismissed in default. He lastly submitted that the ex-parte judgement and order passed by the court below is well reasoned and appeal preferred by the revisionist against said ex-parte order has been dismissed by the learned appellate court with reasoned order and no interference is needed in present revision in respect of the orders passed by the court below. From perusal of record it appears that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with respondent no. 2 according to Hindu rites and rituals on 14.12.2015; couple was blessed with son namely Vardan Mohit Tiwari out of wedlock. However, relationship between the spouse got sour in course to time due to matrimonial discord; the respondent no. 2 filed maintenance case under section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided ex-parte against the revisionist vide judgement and order dated 6.5.2022 whereby a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was awarded to the applicant and Rs. 3,000/- to her minor son as monthly maintenance from the date of filing of application; the said ex-parte judgement and order was set aside on application of the revisionist subject to deposit Rs. 1,53,000/- as security amount; the respondent no. 2 filed complaint under section 12 of Protection of Domestic Violence Act in the year 2018 in which she has impleaded her husband and in-laws, total 08 persons as respondents; said case under the Domestic Violence Act has been decided by the impugned judgement and order dated 11.7.2022 by learned trial court whereby Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded as maintenance to the applicant for herself and her minor son; apart from maintenance, Rs. 30,000/- has also been awarded as lump-sum payment to the applicant as damages for suffering mental emotional and physical harassment; the revisionist Mohit Tiwari assailed the judgement and order passed by learned magistrate before the appellate court but same was dismissed by judgement and order dated 17.1.2024 and the order of learned Magistrate has been affirmed. From perusal of order dated 18.10.2023 passed in Application u/s 482 No. 34234 of 2023 (Mohit Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others) it appears that application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed against the order dated 25.7.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, family court in proceeding under section 126 Cr.P.C. has been disposed of with observation that if the applicant deposits Rs. 1,53,000/- (adjusting the amount already deposited after order dated 25.7.2023) in two installments within a month, the learned court below shall proceed and decide the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both parties within a period of four months. A copy of judgement and order dated 28.2.2024 has been filed on behalf of revisionist in present revision which shows that maintenance case under section 125 Cr.P.C. has been decided by family court and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance to the applicant nos. 1 and 2 from the date of filing of application to the date of judgement and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of judgement. It is also observed that the applicant no. 2 shall receive maintenance till attainment of his majority and Rs. 1,53,000/- deposited as security for restoration of maintenance case will be liable to be adjusted. Therefore, it appears that in the proceeding under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, total Rs. 7,000/- has been awarded as maintenance to the applicant for herself and her minor son and in proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. the applicants have been awarded Rs. 9,000/- per month in toto as maintenance thus amount awarded as maintenance in proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. is higher than the amount awarded as maintenance in the impugned order. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 clarified that 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 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; 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.it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding. On perusal of material on record and the impugned judgement and order passed by the court at district level, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned courts below. The revision is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. However, it is directed that the trial court shall comply with the above direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha while enforcing the impugned judgement and order and the amount paid in proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance of revisionist shall be liable to be adjusted towards any sum of money outstanding to be paid in proceeding under the Act and learned trial court shall be at liberty to ensure that revisionist is not being saddled with paying maintenance in both proceedings simultaneously. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad