Double maintenance is prohibited; Section 125 CrPC awards must be set off in parallel proceedings.

The applicants (wife and minor son) filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking protection and maintenance.

On 29.03.2014, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kapadvanj, awarded a total monthly maintenance of ₹1,600.

On appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 44/2014), the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda, enhanced this amount to ₹2,500 (₹1,500 for the wife and ₹1,000 for the minor) effective from 05.05.2014.

In parallel proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, a coordinate Bench of the High Court had previously determined that the husband’s admitted income was ₹5,000 and the applicants were entitled to a total of ₹4,100 across all proceedings, reserving liberty to seek enhancement under Section 127 CrPC.

The applicants moved this revision application to further enhance the maintenance awarded under the DV Act.

1. Whether the maintenance quantum awarded by the lower courts under the Domestic Violence Act requires revision in light of the husband's established income and parallel Section 125 CrPC proceedings.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding maintenance.

The court primarily applied Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction.

It relied on the principle established in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460, which dictates that revisional jurisdiction should only be exercised in cases of palpable error, non-compliance with the law, or perversity, and that findings of fact should not be substituted arbitrarily.

Additionally, the court applied the principles of Section 125 and Section 127 of the CrPC regarding maintenance and the alteration of allowances due to change in circumstances.

The court observed that the applicants’ entitlement had already been considered in parallel Section 125 CrPC proceedings, where the total maintenance was capped at ₹4,100 based on the husband's income of ₹5,000.

The court noted that the applicants had not utilized the liberty previously granted to file for enhancement under Section 127 CrPC, suggesting satisfaction with the current amount.

Applying the standard from Amit Kapoor, the court found that the lower courts had appropriately appreciated the facts and that there was no perversity or arbitrary exercise of discretion in the orders passed.

The court further reasoned that while maintenance can be claimed under different statutes (DV Act and CrPC), "double maintenance" is not permissible; any amount awarded under Section 125 CrPC must be set off against other awards to ensure equity.

The court held that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to substitute findings of fact unless they are perverse.

It clarified that while the applicants are not entitled to double maintenance, they retain the liberty to file for enhancement under Section 127 CrPC should there be a change in circumstances.

Rule was discharged.