ORDER
T.P. Sharma, J.
1. By this petition, the applicant has challenged legality & propriety of the judgment dated 17-4-2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham in Criminal Appeal No. 5/2008, whereby learned Sessions Judge has partly modified the amount of monthly maintenance awarded to the non-applicants under the provisions of Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kawardha vide order dated 14-12-2007 of Misc. Criminal Case No. 76/2007.
2. The part of the judgment is challenged on the ground that while awarding any maintenance in accordance with Section 20(1)(d) of the Act, the Court is required to award maintenance in accordance with Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), but the Trial Court has not awarded maintenance in accordance with Section 125 of the Code and thereby committed illegality.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court as also the Appellate Court.
4. Short question raised by the applicant is that at the time of awarding any monetary relief in terms of Section 20(1)(d) of the Act, whether the Court is required to take into consideration the liability and entitlement for maintenance in terms of Section 125 of the Code ?
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that Section 20(1) of the Act envisages that while disposing of an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 12, the Magistrate is competent to direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence including the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. Learned Counsel further submits that in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 of the Code, the aggrieved party is required to prove that he or she is unable to maintain himself/herself and having sufficient cause for separate living and the person against whom maintenance is claimed is having sufficient means, but he is not maintaining the aggrieved person. Therefore, at the time of disposing the application under Section 12(1) of the Act if the Court directs for payment of any expenses including maintenance, then the Court is required to examine the entitlement and liability in accordance with Section 125 of the Code.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicants supported the judgment impugned and submitted that the provisions for maintenance under Section 20 of the Act are in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code therefore, at the time of passing any order of maintenance under Section 20 of the Act, the Court is not required to examine the case in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 of the Code. The provisions are independent and in addition to the provisions of maintenance under the Code. Learned Counsel further submit that Section 20 of the Act is a special provision for maintenance to the persons aggrieved under the Act. This section empowers to order lump sum or monthly payments for maintenance. Sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Act empowers to direct the employer or a debtor of the non-applicant to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the Court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent. Relief available under Section 20 of the Act is additional relief available to the aggrieved person and in accordance with Section 26 of the Act the aggrieved person may also avail the remedy before a Civil Court, Family Court or a Criminal Court in addition to and along with any other reliefs available under the Act.
7. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, I have examined the provisions relating to monetary relief provided under Section 20 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act reads as follows:
20. Monetary reliefs.- (1) While disposing of an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to any monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but is not limited to,-
(a) the loss of earnings;
(b) the medical expenses;
(c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and
(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.
(2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.
(3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.
(4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under Sub-section (1) to the parties to the application and to the in-charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides.
(5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order under Sub-section (1).
(6) Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under Sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the Court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.
8. Section 20 of the Act says that at the time of disposal of the application under Sub-section (1) of Section 12, the Magistrate is competent to direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to the effected or aggrieved person or any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but is not limited to, the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the code or any other law for the time being in force. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act empowers the Magistrate to grant such relief which shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved is accustomed. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act empowers the Magistrate to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. Sub- section (6) of Section 20 empowers the Magistrate to direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person. Section 26 of the Act reads as follows:
26. Relief in other suits and legal proceedings.- (1) Any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a Civil Court, Family Court or a Criminal Court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act.
(2) Any relief referred to in Sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a Civil or Criminal Court.
(3) In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief.
9. Section 26 of the Act says that relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in addition to and along with any other relief which the aggrieved person may see in any legal proceeding before a Civil Court, Family Court or a Criminal Court. Relief of maintenance to wife and children is available to the effected party under his entitlement and liability of the person against whom relief is claimed under Section 125 of the Code, when such person is unable to maintain herself and the person against whom relief is claimed is under obligation to maintain and having sufficient means to maintain, but fails to maintain the applicants. But in case of domestic violence, the Court is empowered to grant such relief if the person is aggrieved as a result of the domestic violence and may grant monetary relief in terms of maintenance which would be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved party is accustomed and also empowered to grant lump sum or monthly maintenance or to direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the Court a portion of the wages or salaries. However, the Magistrate is not empowered to grant relief in such form in accordance with Section 125 of the Code. At the time of interpretation of statues, the Court is required to see whether the provisions of the statute are plain, unambiguous and capable of giving their ordinary meaning.
10. In the matter of J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. : [2003]2SCR933 , the Apex Court has held that-
When the words of a Statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said.
11. While dealing with the question of Interpretation of Statutes, the Apex Court has held in the case of Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : [2001]2SCR654 that-.it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rules is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. The Courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the Legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have a proper application in circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the statute.
12. The golden rule of interpretation of statutes is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. The words of provisions under Section 20 of the Act are clear, plain and unambiguous. The provisions are independent and are in addition to any other remedy available to the aggrieved under any legal proceeding before the Civil Court, Criminal Court or Family Court. The provisions are not dependent upon Section 125 of the Code or any other provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 or any other Act relating to award of maintenance. In case of award of maintenance to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the Act, the Court is competent to award maintenance to the aggrieved person and child of the aggrieved person in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Act and the aggrieved person is not required to establish his case in terms of Section 125 of the Code.
Learned Trial Court after arriving at a finding that the non-applicants are aggrieved as a result of domestic violence has awarded maintenance in accordance with Section 20 of the Act. The Trial Court has committed neither any illegality nor any infirmity while passing the order impugned.
13. In the result, I do not find any merit and substance in the petition, same Is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed.