1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

2. The present Criminal Revision has been filed u/s 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Basoda, District Vidisha in Criminal Appeal No.87/2022, whereby the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by JMFC, Ganjbasoda, Vidisha in MJCR No.47/2022, partly allowing the application filed by the respondent no.1 u/s 12 r/w Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as DV Act), has been affirmed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein filed an application u/s 12 of D.V Act along with interim application u/s 23 of D.V. Act before the JMFC, Ganjbasoda alleging therein that she was married with the petitioner on 11.03.2012 at Ganjbasoda according to Hindu Rights and Customs. Out of the said wedlock, respondent no.2 (daughter) was born. After about 4 years of marital life, the petitioner started quarreling over trivial issues, prevented the wife from visiting her parental home, threatened to oust her from the matrimonial home, and failed to provide maintenance since, 2017. There were persistent demands and cruelty by the petitioner. As per the respondent she is victim of domestic violence, hence prayed for interim and final orders for monetary relief of Rs.40,000/- pm for respondent no.1 and Rs.20,000/- pm for respondent no.2, as well as residence orders.

4. The petitioner herein filed the reply and denied all the allegations of domestic violence. According to the petitioner, respondent no.1 was habitually extravagant, demanding expensive items, and whenever her demands were not met, she would threaten to commit suicide. The petitioner further contended that the respondent left the matrimonial home in 2017 without any information and has been living separately since then on her own volition. The petitioner further stated that respondent no.1 has already been granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and granting an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- pm under the DV Act results in a total burden of Rs.35,000/- pm, which is excessive.

5. After considering the application and affidavit filed of assets, income and liabilities, the learned Judicial Magistrate determined the annual income of the petitioner from agricultural and related work as more than Rs.10 lakhs per annum. Learned JMFC granted interim monetary relief of Rs.15,000/- pm to respondent no.1 and Rs.10,000/- pm to respondent no.2 from the date of filing of the application u/s 12 DV Act by holding that the amount under DV Act would be in addition to amount granted by Family Court in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner challenged the said order in a criminal appeal, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.06.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.1 has already granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pm u/s 24 of HMA on the same set of facts. Granting an additional Rs.25,000/- pm under the DV Act results in a total burden of Rs.35,000/- pm, which is excessive and amounts to cruelty. Learned counsel further submitted that both the Courts below have committed manifest error in determining the income and earning capacity of the petitioner. The learned Trial Court relied on the sale proceeds of a chana crop in the year, 2018, amounting to Rs.8,77,800/-, despite the respondents did not file any supporting documents. The Courts below wrongly merged the income of the petitioner's father and mother with his own income.

          Further, the Courts below treated a loan amount of Rs.18,45,000/- standing in the name of the petitioner's father as the petitioner's income, which is a grave illegality. The Courts below failed to appreciate that net agricultural income is only 50% of the gross revenue and ignored the fact that the petitioner has taken loans which he is obliged to repay.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned orders and submitted that the respondent no.1 has been subjected to domestic violence, including economic abuse, cruelty, and deprivation of residence, and the petitioner has willfully neglected to maintain them since 2017. The petitioner is a person of substantial means, owning approximately 25 bigha of agricultural land and a residential house. His earning capacity from agriculture is in the range of Rs. 15 to 20 lakh per annum. The bank statements and Kisan Credit Card (KCC) transactions indicate substantial financial capacity. The petitioner has suppressed his true income and earning capacity. In such circumstances, the courts below rightly exercised judicial estimation of income, which is permissible in law. The plea of double maintenance is misconceived. It is well settled that a woman can seek maintenance simultaneously under different statutes. The respondent No.2 is a minor daughter aged seven years and is attending school. Her educational, medical, and other reasonable needs justify the grant of Rs.10,000/- per month.

8. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is settled in law that the scope of interference in revision against the order of interim maintenance is limited. The DV Act, being a piece of social welfare legislation enacted to protect women from domestic violence, orders that granting maintenance should not be lightly interfered with unless it is unconscionable or unsupported by any material. For passing the order of interim maintenance, the Court is required to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance based on the pleadings filed by both parties and the affidavit of disclosure.

10. The only question involved in the present revision is whether the learned Courts below have committed any error, perversity, arbitrariness, or whether the orders can be said to be contrary to any settled provision of law.

11. In the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in 2021(2) SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that based on the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the Court would be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage.

12. So far as the assessment of earning capacity of the petitioner is concerned, the learned Courts below have determined the said income of the petitioner considering the affidavit filed along with the material on record, including ownership of approximately 25 bigha of agricultural land situated near Village Fatehpur, Tahsil Basoda, sizeable residential property, bank statements showing receipt of Rs.8,77,800 from the sale of chana crop in 2018, and Kisan Credit Card transactions indicating substantial financial activity including loan transactions of about Rs.18,45,000. The petitioner has not produced full and accurate details of his annual agricultural income, crop yield, or other sources of revenue. When the husband does not make a full and frank disclosure of his income, assets, and financial capacity, the court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and make a reasonable estimate based on the material on record. On the basis of material available on record, the Courts below rightly concluded that annual income of the petitioner from agriculture and related work is more than Rs.10 lakhs.

13. As the earning capacity of the petitioner has been assessed based on the material available on record and proper judicial estimation, the assessment of the said earning capacity cannot be said to be contrary to the record.

14. The contention of the petitioner that agricultural income should be computed at only 50% of gross revenue is a factual issue that can be examined at the trial stage with proper evidence. In interim proceedings under Section 23 DV Act, the court is required to make a prima facie assessment based on available material. Similarly, the petitioner's plea that the income of his father and mother has been wrongly attributed to him is not borne out by the impugned orders. The trial court has only noted that the petitioner has a beneficial interest in the family property and stands to inherit the same, which is a relevant factor for assessing his capacity to pay maintenance. As regards the loan amounts, the courts below have not treated the loan amount itself as income. Rather, the existence of substantial transactions, including loans taken against land and crops, indicates financial capacity and creditworthiness, which are relevant factors in assessing earning capacity.

15. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 has already been granted interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month under Section 24 of the HMA and, therefore, the additional grant of Rs.25,000/- per month under the DV Act constitutes "double maintenance" and is oppressive is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the said contention has no legal force. It is now well settled that there is no legal bar to a woman seeking maintenance under different statutes simultaneously. However, to avoid unjust enrichment and double recovery for the same period, the principle of adjustment or set- off must be applied. The appropriate course is to direct the adjustment or set-off of amounts paid under one proceeding against amounts payable under the other, so that the wife and child do not receive duplicative maintenance for the same period.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) has held that there is no legal bar to a woman seeking maintenance under different statutes simultaneously, such as Section 125 CrPC, Section 24 HMA, and the DV Act. However, it would be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceedings, therefore, while granting the maintenance in subsequent proceedings, the Court should take into account maintenance already awarded in the previous proceedings and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount.

17. Considering the petitioner's earning capacity of more than Rs.10 lakhs per annum, his landholding of about 25 bigha, the sizeable residential house, and the reasonable needs of the wife and a school- going minor daughter aged seven years, this Court is of the view that Rs.25,000/- per month (Rs.15,000/- for wife and Rs.10,000/- for daughter) is fair, reasonable and not excessive. Moreover, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- already being paid under Section 24 HMA to respondent No.1 is adjustable against the maintenance granted under DV Act. Thus, the net additional burden on the petitioner for overlapping periods would only be Rs. 15,000/- for respondent No.1 and Rs. 10,000/- for respondent No.2, if adjustment is made. This is well within the petitioner's capacity to pay. In the considered opinion of this Court, that the learned Courts below have erred in not granting adjustment or set-off of the amount already awarded in previous proceedings.

18. The impugned order also directs the petitioner to provide two rooms, kitchen, washroom to the respondents for their residence. Under Section 19 of the DV Act, the Magistrate has the power to pass residence orders. Section 2(s) of the DV Act defines "shared household" as a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship, and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. It is not in dispute that the respondents lived in the house in question during the subsistence of the marriage. The direction to provide residence is an interim measure to secure the safety and shelter of the wife and minor child pending final adjudication which cannot be said as not in accordance with law.

19. The learned Courts below, by the impugned orders, granted interim maintenance and residence orders pending final adjudication of the main application under Section 12 of the DV Act. As the interim orders are not a final determination of the rights and obligations of the parties, the same may always be subjected to modification by the learned Trial Court based on further evidence and material that may come on record during the trial. For passing the order of interim relief, the Court is required to form only a prima facie opinion based on the limited pleadings and affidavits filed. Any interference by this Court, at this stage, in the interim orders would effectively amount to a pre- determination of the issues that are required to be adjudicated by the Trial Court in the final proceedings.

20. The learned Trial Court, while conducting the final proceedings, will have ample opportunity to examine all these aspects in details. Several contentions raised by the petitioner, such as the exact extent of agricultural land, the precise quantum of net agricultural income, the nature and extent of liabilities, the actual ownership structure of the house, and the exact area of the house, are essentially factual disputes that can be properly examined at the trial stage with full evidence. If the petitioner can establish before the Trial Court that the respondents have suppressed facts or concealed anything like the true income of respondent No.1, the Trial Court will be well within its jurisdiction to take an adverse inference against the respondents. Thus, this Court finds that the learned Courts below have exercised their discretion judiciously in granting interim maintenance and residence orders based on the material available on record at the interim stage. The orders dated 23.11.2022 and 16.06.2023 cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to any settled principles of law.

21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by learned 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Basoda, District Vidisha in Criminal Appeal No.87/2022 affirming the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by JMFC, Ganjbasoda, Vidisha in MJCR No.47/2022, for payment of interim monetary relief of Rs.15,000/- per month for respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month for respondent No.2 (daughter) and direction to provide residence are hereby affirmed.

22. To ensure that there is no double recovery for the same period, it is clarified and directed that any amount of interim maintenance paid or payable by the petitioner to respondent No.1 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (presently Rs.10,000/- per month as per order dated 10.03.2022) for any period for which interim monetary relief has been granted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (presently Rs.15,000/- per month for respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month for respondent No.2) shall be duly adjusted or set off against the amount payable under the DV Act for the overlapping period. For the sake of clarity, if the petitioner pays Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 under the HMA order, then for the same period he shall pay the balance amount under the DV Act order to ensure that respondent No.1 receives Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and Rs.10,000/- per month for respondent No.2 (daughter) without duplication. This adjustment applies only to the maintenance payable to respondent No.1 (wife) and not to the maintenance payable for respondent No.2 (daughter), as the HMA order does not provide for maintenance to the daughter.

23. The learned Trial Court is hereby directed to calculate the arrears of maintenance after granting adjustment or set-off of the amount already paid under HMA and fix the schedule of payment by the petitioner to the respondents.

24. It is made clear that all observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present revision petition and shall not prejudice the rights of either party in the final adjudication of the main application pending before the Trial Court.

25. Accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby disposed of with the above observations and directions.