Bombay High Court Allows Husband's Petition to Set Off Interim Maintenance Orders Under DV Act and Section 125 CrPC, Directs Payment of Rs. 13,000 Per Month as Single Consolidated Amount. The court held that a husband cannot be compelled to pay maintenance under two separate proceedings without adjustment, and set aside an unjustified cost order.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Prashant s/o Rangnath Dhakane, filed a criminal writ petition challenging two interim maintenance orders: one dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) in Criminal M.A. No. 689/2019, granting Rs. 1,000 per month each to his wife (respondent no. 1) and two minor children (respondent nos. 2 and 3); and another dated 27.01.2020 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dhule under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in Petition E No. 111/2019, granting Rs. 5,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 4,000 per month each to the children, totaling Rs. 13,000 per month. The petitioner contended that he was being compelled to pay maintenance under both orders, resulting in double payment. Additionally, the wife had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights (Petition A No. 128/2019) and sought interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. The Family Court dismissed that application but imposed costs of Rs. 8,000 on the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the cost was unjustified as he was not at fault. The court considered the submissions of both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chetan Jadhav, argued that the two maintenance orders could not be enforced simultaneously without adjustment, and that the cost order was arbitrary. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. V.C. Patil, supported the orders. The court analyzed the legal position and held that a party cannot be compelled to pay maintenance under two separate proceedings for the same period without any set off. The court directed that the total interim maintenance of Rs. 13,000 per month under the Section 125 CrPC order shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondents, and the DV Act order shall stand satisfied by the same payment. The court also set aside the cost of Rs. 8,000 imposed on the petitioner in the Hindu Marriage Act proceedings, as it was not justified. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

Headnote

A) Family Law - Interim Maintenance - Set Off - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The petitioner husband challenged two separate interim maintenance orders: one under the DV Act granting Rs. 1,000 per month each to wife and two children, and another under Section 125 CrPC granting Rs. 5,000 to wife and Rs. 4,000 each to children. The court held that the husband cannot be compelled to pay maintenance under both orders without adjustment, and directed that the total interim maintenance of Rs. 13,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC shall be paid, with the DV Act order being satisfied by the same payment. The court also set aside the cost of Rs. 8,000 imposed on the husband in the Hindu Marriage Act proceedings. (Paras 1-10)

B) Family Law - Interim Maintenance - Consolidation of Proceedings - Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The wife had also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and sought interim maintenance under Section 24. The Family Court dismissed that application but imposed costs of Rs. 8,000 on the husband. The High Court set aside the cost order, noting that the husband was not at fault and that the wife had already obtained maintenance in other proceedings. (Paras 5-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a husband can be directed to pay interim maintenance under two separate proceedings (DV Act and Section 125 CrPC) without any set off, and whether the orders can be consolidated to avoid double payment.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition in part. It directed that the total interim maintenance of Rs. 13,000 per month under the Section 125 CrPC order shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondents, and the DV Act order shall stand satisfied by the same payment. The cost of Rs. 8,000 imposed on the petitioner in the Hindu Marriage Act proceedings was set aside.

Law Points

  • Interim maintenance
  • set off
  • double payment
  • Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
  • 2005
  • Section 125 CrPC
  • Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act
  • 1955
  • consolidation of orders
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (09) 35

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1631 of 2020

2022-09-23

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.

Mr Chetan T. Jadhav (for petitioner), Mr V.C. Patil (for respondents)

Prashant s/o Rangnath Dhakane

Mrs. Kalyani Prashant Dhakane, Yash Prashant Dhakane (minor), Trupti Prashant Dhakane (minor)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petition challenging two interim maintenance orders and a cost order.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought setting aside of the interim maintenance orders under DV Act and Section 125 CrPC, or in the alternative, a direction that the amounts be set off, and setting aside of the cost of Rs. 8,000 imposed in Hindu Marriage Act proceedings.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was aggrieved by two separate interim maintenance orders passed in different proceedings, which he claimed resulted in double payment, and by an unjustified cost order.

Previous Decisions

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month each to wife and two children under DV Act on 08.01.2020. The Judge, Family Court, Dhule granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month to wife and Rs. 4,000 per month each to children under Section 125 CrPC on 27.01.2020. The Family Court dismissed the wife's application for interim maintenance under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act but imposed costs of Rs. 8,000 on the petitioner.

Issues

Whether the petitioner can be compelled to pay interim maintenance under two separate proceedings (DV Act and Section 125 CrPC) without any set off? Whether the cost of Rs. 8,000 imposed on the petitioner in the Hindu Marriage Act proceedings was justified?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued that the two maintenance orders cannot be enforced simultaneously without adjustment, and that the cost order was arbitrary and unjustified. Respondents' counsel supported the orders and opposed the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

A party cannot be compelled to pay interim maintenance under two separate proceedings for the same period without any set off. The court can consolidate the orders to avoid double payment. Costs imposed without justification are liable to be set aside.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner has challenged the order of interim maintenance granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule under the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ... and interim maintenance granted by the Judge, Family Court, Dhule in Petition E No.111/2019 dated 27.01.2020. Mr Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1/wife has filed various proceedings in different courts and succeeded in getting favourable orders of interim maintenance.

Procedural History

The wife filed Criminal M.A. No. 689/2019 under the DV Act before the JMFC, Dhule, which granted interim maintenance on 08.01.2020. She also filed Petition E No. 111/2019 under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Dhule, which granted interim maintenance on 27.01.2020. Additionally, she filed Petition A No. 128/2019 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance under Section 24, which was dismissed but costs of Rs. 8,000 were imposed on the husband. The husband then filed the present writ petition challenging these orders.

Acts & Sections

  • Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 125
  • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 9, Section 24
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Husband's Petition to Set Off Interim Maintenance Orders Under DV Act and Section 125 CrPC, Directs Payment of Rs. 13,000 Per Month as Single Consolidated Amount. The court held that a husband cannot be compelled to pay maint...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Termination of Headmaster for Misconduct and Moral Turpitude. School Tribunal's order upheld as findings of misconduct were based on evidence and no procedural violation under MEPS Act.