The Bombay High Court has clarified that a wife is not barred from seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC merely because she has initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory remedies are cumulative, not mutually exclusive, provided there is full disclosure of parallel claims.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a serving army employee, challenged a Family Court order granting maintenance of ₹6,000 to his wife and ₹3,000 to their five-year-old daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The wife alleged abandonment after the birth of their child, denial of access to the marital home, and lack of financial support despite the husband’s steady income from military service and agricultural land.
Procedural History
- 2019: Wife filed Maintenance Petition No. E-35/2019 under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Dhule
- 2021: Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹6,000 to wife and ₹3,000 to daughter, effective from date of filing
- 2022: Husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 14 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad, challenging the order as excessive and legally unsustainable
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the maintenance order on the ground that the wife was simultaneously pursuing relief under the Domestic Violence Act, and therefore, dual recovery was impermissible.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a wife can maintain concurrent proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and whether such dual claims constitute an abuse of process.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The petitioner’s counsel argued that allowing parallel maintenance claims under two statutes would lead to unjust enrichment and violate the principle of res judicata by implication. He contended that the wife’s failure to disclose the pending DV Act proceeding rendered the CrPC claim invalid, citing general principles against multiplicity of litigation.
For the Respondent
The wife’s counsel countered that the two statutes serve distinct purposes: Section 125 CrPC provides summary relief for subsistence, while the DV Act offers broader protection including residence rights and compensation. She relied on Rajnesh v. Neha to establish that disclosure, not exclusivity, is the governing principle.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited to correcting patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error - not re-appreciating evidence. It noted that the Family Court had meticulously evaluated affidavits, salary slips, and medical records, and had applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha (AIR 2021 SC 569), which explicitly permits concurrent proceedings under the DV Act and Section 125 CrPC.
"Wife is entitled to maintain proceedings under distinct statutes, provided she discloses the details of the previous proceedings in her subsequent proceedings."
The Court found no perversity in the Family Court’s calculation of maintenance. It observed that the husband’s current take-home salary of ₹37,795 (as per December 2025 salary slip) had increased significantly since the original petition, justifying the maintenance amount. The absence of documented liabilities or medical expenses further supported the award. The Court held that the mere existence of a parallel DV Act proceeding does not extinguish the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so long as there is transparency.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s revision application was dismissed. The Court held that Section 125 CrPC remedies are not mutually exclusive with those under the Domestic Violence Act, and that full disclosure of parallel proceedings satisfies legal requirements. The maintenance order was upheld as reasonable and legally sound.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Dual Maintenance Claims Are Permissible
- Practitioners must advise clients that filing under both Section 125 CrPC and the DV Act is lawful
- Failure to disclose prior proceedings may invite adverse inference, but disclosure cures any procedural defect
- Courts will not strike down maintenance orders merely because another remedy is pending
Income Assessment Must Reflect Current Reality
- Maintenance calculations must be based on the most recent income evidence, not outdated affidavits
- Salary slips from government employers carry strong evidentiary weight
- Courts will not accept unsubstantiated claims of financial hardship by the husband without documentation
Disclosure Is the Key to Avoiding Dismissal
- Always file a sworn affidavit listing all pending maintenance or DV proceedings
- Non-disclosure may be treated as suppression, but disclosure transforms dual claims into legitimate alternatives
- This approach aligns with the Supreme Court’s directive in Rajnesh v. Neha to avoid technical dismissals in family matters
