Maintenance claims under different statutes must be adjudicated together to ensure adjustment and avoid conflicting orders.

The parties were married on July 13, 2020. The wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and the Family Court, Dhenkanal, awarded her ₹15,000 per month.

Both parties challenged this: the wife sought enhancement (RPFAM 44/2023), and the husband sought to set it aside (RPFAM 85/2025).

Parallelly, the husband was granted a decree of divorce in C.P. No. 128 of 2021, and the wife’s plea for restitution of conjugal rights was rejected.

The High Court’s Division Bench confirmed the divorce and initially denied permanent alimony.

On appeal (SLP(C) No. 7359-7360 of 2025), the Supreme Court confirmed the divorce but remanded the issue of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) back to the Family Court for fresh adjudication.

Meanwhile, the wife also filed for alteration of maintenance under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

1. Whether the pending revision applications regarding interim maintenance can be pursued simultaneously with the remanded proceedings for permanent alimony and the application for alteration of maintenance

2. Whether the court must ensure an adjustment or set-off between maintenance amounts awarded under different statutes to avoid overlapping jurisdiction

The Court primarily applied the doctrine established in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandates that to overcome overlapping jurisdiction and avoid conflicting orders, courts must consider an adjustment or set-off of amounts awarded in previous proceedings when determining subsequent maintenance.

Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) regarding permanent alimony.

Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (pari materia to Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the alteration of maintenance.

The Court observed that the legal landscape had changed during the pendency of the revision petitions due to the Supreme Court's remand order. The Supreme Court specifically directed the Family Court to determine permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HMA.

Applying the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines, the High Court reasoned that it is mandatory for subsequent maintenance claims to be adjusted against previous ones to avoid conflicting judgments.

Since the wife had already initiated proceedings for alteration of maintenance under Section 146 of the BNSS and the issue of permanent alimony was now at the trial court level per the Apex Court's direction, the High Court determined that these issues must be tried together by the Family Court rather than being heard in isolation as revision applications.

The High Court disposed of both revision applications (RPFAM No. 44 of 2023 and RPFAM No. 85 of 2025), directing the parties to pursue their claims before the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal.