Gauhati HC rules that while spouses can seek maintenance under both PWDV and BNSS, they cannot receive double payments for the same purpose

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 337

May 5, 2026 : The Gauhati High Court has clarified the legal standing of simultaneous maintenance claims, emphasizing that while a spouse can pursue multiple legal remedies, they cannot receive “double maintenance” for the same purpose. In a recent judgment delivered by Justice Budi Habung, the court addressed a petition filed by Karik Pertin, who sought to quash domestic violence proceedings and a subsequent maintenance order on the grounds that he was already paying a separate maintenance amount.

The legal dispute began when Smti Nibia Modi filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, resulting in an order on September 3, 2025, that required Pertin to pay $₹33,000 per month. Shortly thereafter, a separate maintenance case was filed under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), where a magistrate ordered an interim payment of ₹15,000 per month for the welfare of the wife and children. Pertin challenged the initial ₹33,000 order, arguing that the dual obligations constituted an unfair “double payment” since he was already regularly complying with the ₹15,000 requirement.

Justice Habung observed that proceedings under the PWDV Act and the BNSS are independent yet overlapping remedies. The court noted that while the law allows a wife to pursue both avenues at the same time, the judiciary must ensure there is no duplication of the financial award. The court found Pertin’s selective challenge of only the earlier domestic violence order to be “misconceived,” particularly because he had not challenged the subsequent maintenance order and continued to pay it, which the court suggested could be seen as legal acquiescence.

Ultimately, the High Court declined to quash the domestic violence proceedings, finding no evidence of an abuse of process. However, in the interest of justice, the court ordered that the ₹15,000 already being paid under the BNSS order must be adjusted or set off against the ₹33,000 awarded in the domestic violence case. This means the petitioner is only liable to pay the remaining balance. The petition was dismissed at the admission stage, though Pertin was granted liberty to approach a competent court for future modifications based on new developments, such as property agreements.

Case Reference : Karik Pertin vs. Nibia Modi (Case No.: Crl. Petn./255/2025 ), the petitioner was represented by Mr. C. Modi, while the respondent was represented by Ms. T. Zim, ld. Adv..