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

4 min readNew DelhiJun 8, 2026 06:30 PM IST

Allahabad High Court dismissed the husband's plea against the grant of maintenance. (Image generated using AI)

The Allahabad High Court recently held that there is no bar on a woman to receive maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), even if she is already receiving maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Justice Garima Prashad upheld the orders passed by a Kaushambi court granting interim maintenance of Rs 1,500 per month to the wife in proceedings under the DV Act, over and above the maintenance already awarded under Section 125 CrPC.

“Merely because maintenance has already been awarded under Section 125 CrPC, the same does not create an absolute bar against grant of monetary relief under the DV Act,” the court noted in its order dated May 27.

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.

Story continues below this ad

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.

Story continues below this ad

“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.

Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience.

Expertise

Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents.

Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes:

Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity.

Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes:

Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law.

Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates.

Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More

Tags:

allahabad high court