2015 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 127
(ORISSA HIGH COURT)
INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.
Nrusingha Prasad Das Vs. Lopamudra Das
Crl. M.C. No.842 of 2010
15th July, 2014
Petitioner Counsel: Ms. C. KASTURI & ASSOCIATES
Respondent Counsel: M/s. P.K. KAR, D.K. RATHO, S.C. TRIPATHY, P.R. BEHERA, P.K. JENA
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005), S.12 - Criminal P.C. (1973), S.125 - Interim maintenance under DV Act - Is not a bar even though proceeding u/s.125 Cr. P.C. may have been initiated before appropriate court. (Para 5)
JUDGMENT :- In the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-Nrusingha Prasad Das has sought to challenge the order dated 2.3.2010 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No.825 of 2009, whereby the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack while considering the application for interim maintenance in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 came to direct payment of Rs.4000/- to the opposite party (wife) per month towards the interim maintenance.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the opposite party (wife) did not cooperate with the petitioner or his family and left the house on her own accord and also has initiated a criminal case against the petitioner and his family which has been registered as G.R. Case No.530 of 2009 arising out of Mahila P.S. Cuttack Case No.22 dated 4.6.2009 for the alleged offence under Sections 498- A/506/34 I.P.C. and 4 D.P.Act. Apart from the same, she has also filed an application seeking maintenance before the Family Court, Cuttack bearing Criminal Proceeding No.375 of 2009 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 25.7.2009.
3. The essential contention of the petitioner is that the opposite party having already approached the family court in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. a similar application seeking interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short the 'Act, 2005') ought not to have been entertained.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and stated that there is no bar for instituting a case under the Act, 2005 in spite of pendency of a separate proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before family court.
5. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the view that it is now become well settled by a catena of decisions that providing interim maintenance under the Act, 2005 is not a bar even though a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. may have been initiated before the appropriate court. It is the later court, which will have to consider the interim directions passed in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 at the time of considering the same.
6. This Court is of the considered view that various factual contentions raised by the petitioner are of no consequence at the present since G.R. Case No.530 of 2009 is pending against the petitioner and his family members and this Court finds no error of jurisdiction or otherwise in the order impugned. Consequently, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merits no further consideration and accordingly, stands dismissed. Interim order dated 7.4.2010 passed in Misc. Case No.600 of 2010 stands vacated.