The Karnataka High Court has quashed a family court order awarding Rs 10,000 per month as interim maintenance to a woman, ruling that once a court passes a maintenance order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), an interim maintenance order in a pending matrimonial case cannot continue in parallel.
Background of the Case
The couple married in November 2020 in Tumakuru. Within a week, differences arose as the woman alleged that her husband's family demanded an additional Rs 25 lakh and transfer of properties in her name, despite her family spending Rs 40 lakh on the wedding. She registered a complaint with Byatarayanapura police in Bengaluru and later moved to her parents' home in Tumakuru.
Meanwhile, the husband filed a divorce petition in the Bengaluru family court, claiming his wife deserted him voluntarily. The family court awarded Rs 10,000 as interim maintenance and Rs 20,000 for litigation expenses on January 5, 2024. Subsequently, the woman filed a separate application under Section 125 CrPC before a Tumakuru court, seeking Rs 60,000 per month. On November 21, 2025, the Tumakuru court granted Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance.
High Court's Ruling
Partly allowing the husband's petition, Justice K Manmadha Rao observed that the nature of relief under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is distinct and limited to providing immediate financial assistance for a spouse to prosecute or defend matrimonial proceedings. The judge noted that the family court's interim order was temporary, while the Tumakuru court's maintenance order was final and based on evidence.
"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 stated.
Litigation Expenses Upheld
However, the High Court upheld the Rs 20,000 awarded by the family court for litigation expenses, as it falls under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows support for a spouse without sufficient income to fight the case.
The husband had argued that the woman had independent sources of income, including business and rental income of Rs 4 lakh per month, and that parallel maintenance claims were not permitted. The court did not address these income claims in detail but focused on the legal principle against dual maintenance orders.
