Can wife claim maintenance under both CrPC and Domestic Violence Act? Allahabad High Court answers

Plea before Allahabad High Court

• The husband had contended before the court that his wife had instituted proceedings under Section 125 CrPC within three years of marriage, wherein the husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs 2,000 per month to his wife and Rs 1,500 per month to the minor daughter.
• It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid order, his wife subsequently instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act, allegedly without disclosing the earlier maintenance order passed under Section 125 CrPC.
• The principal submission advanced on behalf of the husband was that once maintenance had already been awarded, the court could not have granted further monetary relief under the DV Act.
• It was argued that grant of maintenance under the DV Act, in addition to the amount already awarded under Section 125 CrPC, results in duplication of maintenance and causes grave prejudice.
• The husband further submitted that there was no finding by the court that the amount awarded under Section 125 CrPC was insufficient for sustenance of his wife and minor daughter.

Court upholds dual maintenance

The High Court noted that while granting interim relief, the trial court had considered allegations that the husband was residing in Mumbai, running a laundry business and earning additional income from agriculture. Based on those circumstances, the court had awarded interim monetary relief of Rs 1,500 per month during the pendency of the DV Act proceedings.

The court held that the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and proceedings under the DV Act operate in distinct statutory spheres, though both may incidentally provide monetary support to an aggrieved woman.

Referring to the Supreme Court‘s ruling, the High Court noted that maintenance can be awarded in separate proceedings under different enactments. However, courts passing subsequent maintenance orders must take into account amounts already awarded in earlier proceedings to avoid overlapping benefits.

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that maintenance may be granted in separate proceedings arising under distinct enactments, including proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the D.V. Act. At the same time, it was observed that while passing a subsequent order of maintenance, the concerned Court must take into account the amount already awarded in earlier proceedings so as to avoid overlapping or double benefit,” the court noted.

In the present case, the court found that the additional amount awarded under the DV Act was only Rs 1,500 per month and had been granted after considering the financial circumstances of the parties.

It also noted that the husband had not challenged the existence of the marital relationship and had confined his challenge solely to the maintainability of additional maintenance under the DV Act.

“This Court is of the considered view that the mere existence of an order under Section 125 CrPC does not denude the Magistrate of jurisdiction to grant monetary relief otherwise permissible under the DV Act,” the court noted.

The court found that no material was brought on record to demonstrate that the orders challenged before it suffered from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference.

“The amount awarded, namely Rs. 1,500 per month, is modest in nature and cannot, by any standard, be termed excessive or arbitrary,” the Allahabad High Court observed while dismissing the revision petition.