When maintenance proceedings run in parallel — a Section 24 HMA order from one court, a Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act order from another — the arithmetic can outgrow the income it is drawn from. In Arka Mollick v. Bipasa Saha Nee Mollick (CRR 5059 and 5066 of 2025, decided 8 October 2026), the Calcutta High Court dealt with a husband facing an arrest warrant in execution of DV Act maintenance stacked on top of an earlier Family Court award. The Court refused to quash either the proceeding or the order — the husband had slept over his appeal rights for almost three years — but directed set-off of overlapping payments in line with Rajnesh v. Neha, holding that the wife cannot execute duplicate recovery for identical months.
How the two orders accumulated
The parties married in 2013 and have two minor daughters. In the husband’s divorce proceedings, a Family Court in Tripura ordered him in April 2022 to pay Rs. 18,000 per month as interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Two months later the wife was allegedly ousted from the matrimonial home; in November 2022 she filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act before a Magistrate at Alipore. In February 2023 the Magistrate passed an ex parte interim order of Rs. 24,000 per month — Rs. 12,000 for the wife and Rs. 6,000 for each daughter — recording that it was in excess of and in addition to the Tripura order.
The husband did not appeal under Section 29. Execution followed: arrears of Rs. 2,56,000 were computed by March 2024, and a warrant of arrest issued in October 2024. Only in November 2025 did the husband file a Section 25(2) application for modification, citing unemployment and debts — and days later, criminal revisions before the High Court seeking to quash the interim order and the execution as a nullity.
The nullity argument, rejected
The husband’s core submission was that stacking Rs. 24,000 on top of Rs. 18,000 without any set-off mechanism violated Rajnesh v. Neha and Kiran Jyot Maini, rendering the order void at its foundation. The Court disagreed on the remedy while accepting the premise. The absence of a set-off mechanism was a real defect — but a correctable one. As the Court put it, the remedy against overlapping execution is not the wholesale quashing of the welfare proceeding. The order was within jurisdiction, the husband had an appeal he never used, and he had meanwhile elected the Section 25(2) route, which assumes the order’s validity.
What the husband sought
Declaration that the interim order and execution were nullities; quashing of the DV proceeding itself.
What the Court granted
The order stands, but execution must apply set-off for overlapping months; arrears recalculated; instalments for genuine arrears; Section 25(2) application decided in eight weeks.
The directions
Throughout, the Court anchored itself to the welfare of the two children as the paramount consideration — the reason quashing was never a realistic outcome. Maintenance orders for minors are not undone because the paying parent’s procedural grievances are genuine; they are adjusted.
Why this matters in Delhi practice
Parallel maintenance is the norm, not the exception, in contested matrimonial litigation: Section 24 HMA before the Family Court, Section 12 DV Act before the Magistrate, sometimes Section 144 BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC) besides. Rajnesh v. Neha requires disclosure of prior orders and contemplates adjustment, and Delhi courts routinely apply it through the mandatory affidavit of assets and income. This judgment supplies the enforcement-side corollary: where overlap has already produced inflated arrears, the correction happens inside execution through set-off and recalculation — while the respondent who ignored his Section 29 appeal cannot convert a quantum grievance into a jurisdictional attack years later.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a DV Act maintenance order be passed when an HMA Section 24 order already exists?
Yes. Section 20 of the DV Act permits monetary relief in addition to other remedies, and Rajnesh v. Neha does not bar successive orders. But the Supreme Court requires the applicant to disclose earlier orders, and the later court to consider adjustment or set-off of amounts already awarded, so that the total reflects one assessment of need and capacity rather than an accumulation.
Why did the Court refuse to quash the interim order here?
The husband never appealed the February 2023 interim order under Section 29 DV Act. He approached the High Court in revision nearly three years later, after arrears were computed and an arrest warrant issued, while simultaneously pursuing a Section 25(2) modification application before the Magistrate. The Court held the order was not a nullity and that an overlapping-recovery problem is corrected by adjustment in execution, not by wholesale quashing of a welfare proceeding.
What exactly was directed on the double-recovery problem?
The interim order stands, but its implementation is subject to set-off: amounts paid under the Tripura Family Court order for overlapping months must be credited against the DV maintenance. The executing court must recalculate arrears accordingly, with genuine arrears payable in instalments, and the Magistrate must decide the pending Section 25(2) application within eight weeks.
What is the lesson on timing for a respondent in DV proceedings?
Use the statutory appeal under Section 29 DV Act within its limitation. A respondent who lets an interim order attain finality and then invokes revisional or inherent jurisdiction years later, after execution begins, starts from a position of acute weakness — delay, election of remedies and the children's welfare all weigh against disturbing the order.