Pendency of Maintenance Proceedings Under One Statute Does Not Bar Separate Adjudication Under Another Enactment

The Petitioner (wife) filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) seeking maintenance and alternate accommodation/rent

On 25.08.2023, the Magisterial Court denied relief, citing the Petitioner's capacity to work and maintain herself

The Petitioner appealed this order (CRL.A. No. 382/2023)

Simultaneously, the Petitioner filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., where the Family Court awarded ₹25,000 per month on 31.05.2025

Both parties filed Revision Petitions against the Section 125 order, which are currently pending before the High Court

On 31.01.2026, the First Appellate Court adjourned the PWDV appeal indefinitely until the High Court decides the Section 125 revisions

The Petitioner challenged this adjournment

the Supreme Court precedent in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, which established that a wife may seek maintenance under multiple statutes (PWDV Act, Section 125 Cr.P.C., or HMA) simultaneously

while there is no bar to multiple proceedings, the court in later proceedings must take into account prior awards to grant adjustments or set-offs to avoid inequity

staying PWDV proceedings because of pending Section 125 Cr.P.C. matters would render the PWDV Act redundant

The High Court reasoned that the statutory remedies under the PWDV Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. are independent, even if facts overlap

The Court found that the First Appellate Court erred in adjourning the PWDV appeal pending the High Court’s decision on Section 125 revisions, as this approach frustrates the objective of the PWDV Act

The Court noted that the Appellate Court is duty-bound to consider the specific facts and legal propositions—including the respondent's arguments regarding the decree of divorce and the right of residence—under the PWDV framework independently

The pendency of a superior court's review of a different maintenance statute does not divest the Magisterial or Appellate Court of its jurisdiction to resolve PWDV-specific prayers, such as alternate accommodation

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the adjournment order

The First Appellate Court was directed to decide the appeal (CRL.A. No. 382/2023) on its merits after hearing both sides, irrespective of the proceedings pending before the High Court

The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying maintenance or residence claims