Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has quashed a family court order awarding Rs 10,000 a month as interim maintenance to a woman, holding that once a court passes a maintenance order under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), an interim maintenance order in a pending matrimonial case cannot continue in parallel.Partly allowing a petition filed by the woman’s husband, Justice K Manmadha Rao said the nature and scope of relief under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was distinct and limited to providing immediate financial assistance to enable a wife to prosecute or defend matrimonial proceedings.The couple in question got married in Nov 2020 at Tumakuru. Within a week, differences cropped up as the woman alleged that the husband’s family insisted on receiving another Rs 25 lakh, apart from the transfer of properties in her name, even though her family had spent Rs 40 lakh on the marriage. As she was allegedly treated badly, she registered a complaint with Byatarayanapura police in Bengaluru. Thereafter, she shifted to her parents’ house in Tumakuru.Meanwhile, alleging that his wife had deserted him voluntarily, the husband filed a matrimonial case before the family court in Bengaluru, seeking divorce. The court awarded Rs 10,000 as interim maintenance to the wife and an additional Rs 20,000 towards litigation expenses, after allowing the interlocutory application filed by the woman. This order was passed on Jan 5, 2024. Subsequently, the woman filed a separate application before a Tumakuru court under CrPC Section 125, seeking Rs 60,000 a month as maintenance. On Nov 21, 2025, the Tumakuru court awarded Rs 10,000 as monthly maintenance.The husband challenged both orders, contending that the woman possessed independent sources of income, including business and rental income amounting to Rs 4 lakh a month. He further argued that parallel adjudication of maintenance claims was not permitted under the law, and that the woman had failed to disclose facts in court.After perusing the materials on record, Justice Rao noted that the Rs 10,000 interim maintenance awarded by the family court was limited in nature, as final adjudication was pending. He added that the Tumakuru court’s Rs 10,000 maintenance order was final and, based on evidence, took precedence over the interim arrangement.“In that view, continuation of the parallel direction from the family court would result in duplication of relief and overlapping financial liability for the same period, which cannot be sustained in law,” the judge noted.However, the judge upheld the sum of Rs 20,000 awarded under litigation expenses by the family court, saying this falls under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows support for a spouse without enough income to fight the case.
