HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 10650/2025 Hukum Chand S/o Trilok Chand, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Near Bangali Mandir, Rani Bazaar, Bikaner (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Suchitra Spouse/o Hukumchand, Resident Of Gandhi Colony, Vallabh Garden, Bikaner, District- Bikaner

2. Muskan D/o Hukumchand, Resident Of Gandhi Colony, Vallabh Garden, Bikaner, District- Bikaner ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kan Singh Oad Mr. Rakesh For Respondent(s) : -------

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

10/02/2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order of interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was passed against the petitioner, directing payment of ₹3,000/- per month. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. culminated in a final order dated 28.05.2016, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a consolidated amount of ₹5,500/- per month towards maintenance of his wife and minor son. It is specifically pointed out that in the said order dated 28.05.2016, the learned Magistrate directed that any amount paid towards interim maintenance shall stand adjusted.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has been regularly paying the maintenance amount strictly in terms of the final order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and there is no default in compliance thereof. In view of the express direction for adjustment of interim maintenance contained in the final order, the petitioner was not required to separately deposit the interim maintenance amount earlier fixed under the Domestic Violence Act vide order dated 24.03.2015.

Learned counsel contends that despite the above position, after an inordinate delay of nearly ten years, recovery proceedings have been initiated under the Domestic Violence Act by treating the entire interim maintenance amount as outstanding, ignoring the fact that the petitioner has already complied with the final maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This has resulted in issuance of coercive recovery and attachment proceedings, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court.

It is also submitted that, in any event, recovery of arrears of maintenance cannot be permitted beyond the statutory period, and that recovery proceedings can be initiated only for a maximum period of eleven months preceding the application.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020 INSC 631)

This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dated 28.05.2016 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. A bare perusal of the said order clearly reveals that the interim maintenance awarded earlier was directed to be adjusted against the final maintenance amount. It is also not disputed before this Court that the petitioner has been paying the entire maintenance amount as directed under the said final order.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra)

has categorically held that where multiple maintenance proceedings are pending between the parties, the Court must ensure adjustment of maintenance amounts to avoid duplication and double recovery. It has further been emphasized that a spouse cannot be permitted to recover maintenance amounts twice over for the same period under different statutes.

In view of the above facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned recovery proceedings are prima facie unsustainable and warrant interference.

Accordingly, issue notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, returnable within four weeks.

In the meantime, the recovery and attachment proceedings initiated and pending under the Domestic Violence Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner, including the attachment notice dated 06.11.2025, shall remain stayed.

It is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to file an applic