Final maintenance under Section 125 CrPC supersedes interim maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act to avoid duplication.

The petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife) married on 23.11.2020. Following matrimonial disputes and allegations of dowry demands, the husband filed M.C. No. 5/2022 for dissolution of marriage.

In those proceedings, the Family Court Bengaluru granted interim maintenance of ₹10,000/month and ₹20,000 litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) on 05.01.2024.

Subsequently, the respondent filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in Tumakuru, where the court awarded a final maintenance of ₹10,000/month on 21.11.2025.

The petitioner challenged both orders, contending the wife is a B.E. graduate with independent income and that parallel maintenance orders for the same cause are impermissible.

1. Whether a wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. when she is highly educated and allegedly capable of maintaining herself.

2. Whether parallel directions for interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA and final maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can operate simultaneously.

3. Whether the award of litigation expenses remains valid even if the interim maintenance order is set aside due to a subsequent final adjudication.

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the husband's obligation to maintain a wife unable to maintain herself.

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.

Supreme Court precedent Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandates the disclosure of prior maintenance orders to prevent overlapping/conflicting awards and requires courts to adjust or set off maintenance amounts in subsequent proceedings to avoid duplication of financial liability.

The court observed that while both parties are educated, the Family Court in Tumakuru had already conducted a full-fledged evidentiary appreciation to determine a final maintenance amount of ₹10,000 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The High Court reasoned that since this determination was a "final adjudication," it must take primacy over the "interim arrangement" made in the HMA proceedings.

Allowing both to continue would result in a duplication of relief and an unfair overlapping financial burden on the husband for the same period.

The court distinguished "litigation expenses" from "maintenance," holding that expenses under Section 24 HMA are a one-time measure to ensure the wife has "access to justice" to defend matrimonial suits, regardless of education if she lacks sufficient independent income for legal costs.

It partly allowed the writ petition (WP 8159/2024), setting aside the ₹10,000 interim maintenance granted in the divorce suit to avoid duplication, while upholding the direction to pay ₹20,000 as litigation expenses.

The court ordered that the Section 125 Cr.P.C. award shall be the operative obligation, and any final permanent alimony in the M.C. case must account for these payments to prevent double recovery.