Final maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. supersedes interim maintenance under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act to avoid double payment.

The parties married on 23.11.2020. Following disputes and allegations of dowry harassment, the respondent-wife began residing separately and filed a criminal complaint

The petitioner-husband filed M.C. No. 5/2022 for dissolution of marriage, during which the wife was granted interim maintenance of ₹10,000 and litigation expenses of ₹20,000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) on 05.01.2024

Simultaneously, the wife filed Crl.Misc. No. 12/2024 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., where the Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹10,000 per month on 21.11.2025

The husband challenged both orders, alleging the wife was gainfully employed as a B.E. graduate and that parallel maintenance orders for the same cause were impermissible

1. Whether a wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. when she is highly educated and allegedly has independent business income

2. Whether parallel proceedings for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. result in impermissible duplication of relief

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for interim maintenance and litigation expenses during matrimonial suits

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, concerning the final statutory right to maintenance to prevent vagrancy

The precedent set by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandates the disclosure of prior maintenance orders to ensure adjustment and avoid overlapping financial liabilities in parallel proceedings

The Court observed that while the wife is an engineering graduate, the petitioner failed to Cogently prove she was currently earning the alleged ₹4,00,000 per month

Regarding the overlapping orders, the Court reasoned that the determination under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was a result of final adjudication and appreciation of evidence, thus assuming primacy over the interim arrangement made under Section 24 HMA

The Court held that continuing the interim maintenance order alongside the final Cr.P.C. order would cause unsustainable duplication

It distinguished "litigation expenses" awarded under the HMA as a distinct, one-time necessity to ensure the wife’s access to justice in the divorce proceedings, which remains valid regardless of the maintenance award

It partly allowed WP No. 8159/2024, setting aside the interim maintenance of ₹10,000 granted in the matrimonial suit to avoid duplication, but upheld the direction to pay ₹20,000 as litigation expenses

The Court ordered that the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be the operative obligation, subject to any final adjustments by the Family Court during the disposal of the divorce petition