The Domestic Violence Act allows a wife to seek maintenance even if her Section 125 CrPC claim is denied. On a plea challenging an order directing a husband to pay his wife ₹5,000 in interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, the Court issued the order.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that the rejection of a wife’s application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not bar her from seeking monetary relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act).

Justice Prem Narayan Singh said that a decision taken in a case under Section 125 CrPC and under Section 12 of the DV Act have no binding effect on each other.

“If, in proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC, the application of wife seeking maintenance is rejected by the Family Court, such a wife would not be precluded from claiming maintenance or other monetary remedy under the provisions of the DV Act,” the Court’s order stated.

The Court passed the order on a criminal revision plea challenging a magistrate’s order directing a husband to pay ₹5,000 as interim maintenance under the DV Act to his wife.

The order was contested primarily on the grounds that the woman had previously had her maintenance application under Section 125 of the CrPC denied by a family court on the grounds that she had been living apart from her husband voluntarily. The contentions made in the application under Section 12 of the DV Act and the plea under Section 125 CrPC were the same, the Court was told.

Additionally, it was stated that the petitioner-husband was now retired from the Army and had a younger sister and parents to take care of. The wife’s attorney disagreed with the arguments, arguing that the DV Act and Section 125 CrPC procedures were conducted differently.

“In upshot of the aforesaid ratio, the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court, it is obviously established that a decision taken in the case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, have no binding effect on each other,” the High Court held.

The Court also noted that Section 43 of the Evidence Act clearly mandated that the judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, “unless the existence of such Judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue or is relevant under some other provision of this Act.”

The bench came to the conclusion that the DV Act case had nothing to do with the family court’s order, which had concluded that there was insufficient cause to award maintenance. The bench also cited a Supreme Court decision that stated that a claimant may still file a claim for maintenance under a different statute even if maintenance is granted under one statute. The husband’s petition was dismissed by the court because it was deemed to have no merit.