Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Siddharth Jaiswal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A on behalf of the State and perused the record.
(2.) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionists against the judgement and order dated 13.01.2012 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No.3326 of 2011 (Madhuri Dwivedi vs. Deepak Dwivedi and others), whereby application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein-after-referred to as Act No.43 of 2005) filed by opposite party no.2 has been allowed directing the revisionists to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the opposite party no.2 as interim maintenance during pendency of Complaint Case No.3326 of 2011 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2015 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.24, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2014 (Deepak Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. and another) under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist No.1 has been dismissed.
(3.) This case has chequered history of litigation. The issue between the parties as raised on behalf of the revisionists is that whether the opposite party no.2 is entitled to get maintenance separately under Section 23 of the Act No.43 of 2005 as well as maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that by order dated 24.08.2009 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, an amount of Rs.2,500/- has been awarded as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 as well as her daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was challenged by the opposite party no.2 in Criminal Revision No.3609 of 2009 but the same was dismissed by this Court by order dated 27.04.2012. The said order dated 27.04.2012 of this Court was further challenged by the opposite party no.2 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.7401 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 05.07.2013 with the following direction:- "After hearing both the learned counsel and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the maintenance awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court requires to be modified. Accordingly, we enhance the maintenance awarded to the petitioners from Rs.2500/- to Rs.4,000/-. The maintenance shall be payable to the petitioners from the date of filing of the application by the petitioners herein. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.";