it would not have been appropriate for the Court of MM under Domestic Violence Act to initiate simultaneous adjudication in respect of Istridhan and dowry articles, when another court was seized with the matter.
It must be considered that for granting maintenance, a party can either approach the Court of MM under Domestic Violence Act soon after commission of Domestic Violence or under Section 125 Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance. The Jurisdiction for granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and Domestic Violence Act is parallel jurisdiction and if maintenance has been granted underSection 125 Cr. P.C. after taking into account the entire material placed before the Court and recording evidence, it is not necessary that another MM under Domestic Violence Act should again adjudicate the issue of maintenance. The law does not warrant that two parallel courts should adjudicate same issue separately. If adjudication has already been done by a Court of MM underSection 125 Cr. P.C., re-adjudication of the issue of maintenance cannot be done by a Court of MM under Domestic Violence Act. I, therefore, CRL. R.P. 633 OF 2010 Page 3 of 4 consider that learned MM was right in allowing maintenance only to the tune of ` 6,000/- p.m.
6. So far as other reliefs are concerned, the learned MM and ASJ had given liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and prove that she had suffered loss and was entitled for compensation. I find no ground to interfere with this order of learned ASJ as the order is not without jurisdiction. I also find force in the reasoning given by learned ASJ that since the matter regarding dowry articles and Istridhan was pending before another court, it was rightly not gone into by MM as it would not have been appropriate for the Court of MM under Domestic Violence Act to initiate simultaneous adjudication in respect of Istridhan and dowry articles, when another court was seized with the matter.
Delhi High Court
Renu Mittal vs Anil Mittal & Ors. on 27 September, 2010
