Overlapping maintenance awards must be adjusted to prevent double recovery, not quashed.

The parties married in 2013 and have two minor daughters.

In April 2022, the Tripura Family Court directed the husband to pay ₹18,000 per month as maintenance pendente lite to the wife.

In February 2023, in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), the Magistrate granted a further ₹24,000 per month—₹12,000 to the wife and ₹6,000 to each child—and described it as “in excess of and in addition to” the Tripura award.

The wife initiated execution proceedings, and the husband later challenged both the interim maintenance order and an execution order under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

He had not appealed the interim order under Section 29 of the PWDV Act and had separately applied under Section 25(2) for modification due to alleged changed circumstances.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the interim maintenance order and related execution orders despite the alternative appeal under Section 29 of the PWDV Act and the husband’s delay.

Whether the overlapping maintenance orders required adjustment or set-off, and whether the execution proceedings should be recalculated to prevent double recovery.

Section 29 of the PWDV Act provides a statutory appellate remedy, while the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC—corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—remains available only with restraint, particularly where no patent jurisdictional error, nullity, or manifest abuse of process is shown.

Under Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act, a Magistrate may grant ex parte interim relief; Section 25(2) permits alteration, modification, or revocation of an order upon a change in circumstances.

Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, requires disclosure of prior maintenance proceedings and consideration of adjustment or set-off when successive claims are made under different statutes; any variation of an earlier order must be sought in that proceeding.

The Court also relied on Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal for the cautious exercise of inherent jurisdiction despite an alternative remedy.

The Magistrate had jurisdiction to grant interim relief and had been informed of the earlier Tripura order; accordingly, the 2023 order was not a nullity warranting wholesale quashing.

The husband’s prolonged failure to appeal, participation in execution proceedings, and separate Section 25(2) application further weighed against intervention under Section 482.

However, describing the PWDV award as additional to the earlier award without specifying a credit mechanism risked double recovery.

Applying Rajnesh, the Court held that the execution court must account for amounts paid under the Tripura order for overlapping periods and recalculate genuine arrears.

The husband’s claim of subsequent financial hardship was appropriately left to the Magistrate under Section 25(2).

It directed that the February 17, 2023 order remain operative subject to full adjustment and set-off for overlapping payments; the executing court must recalculate arrears, taking account of the relevant trial-court record, and may set manageable instalments for any reconciled arrears.

The Magistrate was directed to decide the husband’s Section 25(2) application on its merits within eight weeks, and the PWDV proceeding was requested to be expedited.

Both revisions were disposed of without an order as to costs.