Maintenance Laws : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Guidelines To Address Overlapping Jurisdictions Under Sec 125 CrPC, DV Act, HMA

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking guidelines to prevent misuse of maintenance laws by means of conflicting orders and overlapping jurisdictions. The matter was heard by bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Hemant Gupta. The bench remarked that the issue raised in the petition had already been dealt with by the Supreme Court. The hearings took place in Hindi and have been translated for the purposes of this article. 

As per the petition, the amount for maintenance could be granted under various provisions of law including Section 125 of CrPC, Domestic Violence Act, Hindu Marriage Act etc. This resulted in a multi-pronged situation causing severe inconvenience to parties that were required to pay maintenance. The writ petition sought for all forms of maintenance to be granted under the same umbrella.

At the outset, CJI Lalit stated that there had been a judgement by Justice Indu Malhotra(Rajnesh v Neha) providing that if a woman has been granted maintenance under a specific provision of law, she would not be granted additional maintenance by any other forum. He stated–

"For instance, if a woman has been granted maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC and later approaches the court under the Domestic Violence Act, or Hindu Marriage Act for that matter, the maintenance granted as per the previous award would be duly considered. Only after such due consideration, will new orders be passed."

However, the petitioner continued arguing saying that many persons approached different forums seeking for maintenance despite there existing a single ground. He submitted an example of a case, where based on one ground, two different proceedings in two different courts had been going on. He stated–

"If there is a case in two places on the same ground and two different judges pass two different orders, then it is hundred percent sure that one of the two judges must have given a wrong decision, which is against justice. If both the judges pass the same order, then what is the point of wasting the time of two different judges on the same issue?"

CJI Lalit reiterated that the issue had already been dealt with in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021 Vol 2 SCC 324). For context, the said judgement provides guidelines to overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings and thus ensuring uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts. The guidelines read as follows–

a) Where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or set- off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding;

b) It is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;

c) If the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.

Accordingly, while stating that "every facet had already been considered", CJI Lalit dismissed the petition.

CASE STATUS: Amarjeet Singh v. Union of India WP(C) No. 860/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order