Indian law gives a wife more than one door through which to seek maintenance: the summary remedy now found in Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 125 CrPC), the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the matrimonial statutes themselves. The remedies are cumulative — but the money is not. In Tushar Shah v. Anjana Shah, CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 511/2025, decided on 5 August 2026, the Delhi High Court modified a Family Court order of interim maintenance to adjust an amount already awarded under the Domestic Violence Act, so that the wife receives one consolidated sum rather than overlapping payments for the same period.
The competing orders
The husband approached the High Court in revision against an order of the Family Court directing him to pay interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month to his wife. His grievance was not so much the figure as the arithmetic behind it: a Magistrate had already directed him, in earlier proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to pay ₹13,000 per month, and the Family Court had fixed its own figure without adjusting that existing liability. The result, he contended, was an overlapping burden for the same period — in substance, maintenance counted twice.
What the High Court did
Before Justice Girish Kathpalia, the parties arrived at a sensible resolution which the Court recorded and gave effect to. The grievance about non-adjustment was found to have merit. The Family Court's order was modified: the husband would pay ₹17,000 per month as interim maintenance in the Family Court proceedings, while the ₹13,000 per month payable under the Domestic Violence Act order would continue separately and unchanged. The wife thus receives ₹30,000 per month in aggregate — the level the Family Court considered appropriate — but through two coordinated orders rather than two overlapping ones. The revision was disposed of on these consented terms.
Before the revision
₹13,000 per month under the Domestic Violence Act order, plus ₹30,000 per month under the Family Court order — a combined outflow of ₹43,000 for the same period, with no adjustment between the two.
After the revision
₹13,000 per month under the Domestic Violence Act order, plus ₹17,000 per month under the modified Family Court order — a consolidated ₹30,000 per month, matching the Family Court's assessment of the wife's entitlement.
The principle at work
The order applies a principle now firmly settled in maintenance jurisprudence: remedies are cumulative, recovery is not. A wife is entitled to choose her forum, and to pursue more than one, because each statute serves a distinct purpose — the summary provision guards against destitution, the Domestic Violence Act addresses the consequences of domestic abuse, and the matrimonial statutes deal with support during and after matrimonial litigation. But when it comes to quantum, the courts look at the aggregate. An award in a later proceeding must take note of what is already being paid under an earlier order, and either set it off or make clear how the two are to operate together.
Disclose
Every maintenance proceeding should open with full disclosure of earlier and parallel proceedings and of every order of maintenance already in force between the parties.
Assess
The court assesses the appropriate total support on the incomes and needs of the parties — the figure the claimant ought to receive in all, not per statute.
Adjust
Amounts payable under subsisting orders are adjusted, so the combined effect of all orders equals the assessed total for the same period.
Practical significance in the Delhi Family Courts
Parallel maintenance proceedings are common in Delhi: a petition under the Domestic Violence Act before a Magistrate, an application under Section 144 BNSS before the Family Court, and sometimes interim relief in a divorce petition besides. Orders of this kind show how the overlap is managed in practice, and they carry lessons for both sides. For a wife, pursuing several remedies is legitimate, but the claims should be framed consistently and prior awards candidly disclosed — an award obtained by silence about an earlier order is vulnerable in revision. For a husband, the answer to overlapping orders is not to stop paying, which invites enforcement and even detention in execution, but to seek adjustment from the court, as was done here.
Since 1 July 2024, the maintenance provision formerly found in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 appears as Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The substance of the remedy is unchanged, and the case law developed under Section 125 continues to guide its application.
The outcome
The Family Court's interim maintenance order was modified by consent to ₹17,000 per month, with the Domestic Violence Act award of ₹13,000 per month continuing independently. The revision was disposed of accordingly. The final determination of maintenance, as always, remains open before the Family Court, where the incomes and needs of the parties will be assessed on evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a wife claim maintenance under more than one law at the same time?
Yes. Proceedings under Section 144 BNSS (earlier Section 125 CrPC), the Domestic Violence Act and the Hindu Marriage Act or Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act can run in parallel; one does not bar the other. What the law does not permit is double recovery: where maintenance has been fixed in one proceeding, it must be disclosed in the other and adjusted against any further award for the same period.
What happens if the husband is already paying under a Domestic Violence Act order?
The amount being paid under the earlier order is set off. If a Family Court later fixes a higher figure, the husband ordinarily pays the difference, so that the total in the wife's hands equals the later, higher assessment — not the two amounts stacked together. This is the approach the Delhi High Court applied in the order discussed here.
Is interim maintenance final?
No. Interim maintenance holds the field only during the proceedings and is subject to the final determination, where the court assesses the parties' incomes, needs and conduct on evidence. Interim figures can also be varied if circumstances change materially while the case is pending.
Must both parties disclose their earlier proceedings?
Yes. Parties seeking or resisting maintenance are expected to disclose all pending and decided proceedings between them and every order of maintenance already in force. Suppression cuts both ways: it can lead to an inflated award being corrected in revision, and it can equally count against a payer who conceals income or assets.