Can a Wife Ask Two Different Courts for Maintenance and Alimony in the Same Divorce? She Tried. Here's How we resolve the case in 6 Months.
About the Client
Our client was a 41-year-old owner of a small manufacturing unit in Faridabad. When his marriage broke down, his wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS, claiming she had no income of her own and that her husband was hiding crores in undisclosed wealth behind the small factory. She asked the court for ₹2 lakh a month as interim maintenance. In her petition, she said her husband enjoyed an expensive lifestyle, foreign holidays, and a business that was actually much bigger than it really was.
At the same time, she also filed a separate application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, before a different judge in the same court. She did not disclose to this court about her other case on the same maintenance matter. This meant two different courts were being asked to fix a maintenance amount for the same wife, for the same time period. Neither court knew that the other court was hearing the same case.
Before our client came to Advocate Sunita Sharma at SPJ Advocates & Co., the family court had already passed an ex-parte order in the Section 125 case without properly hearing his side of the story. The order told him to pay ₹60,000 a month. This amount was too much for a small businessman.
What Made This Case Difficult
She wanted a quick mutual consent divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. According to the law of mutual divorce, a couple must have lived separately for at least one year before they apply. Both husband and wife have to go to court together. There are two steps to get a mutual divorce:
- An existing ex-parte interim order of ₹60,000 a month was already granted by court before we were engaged, with the real risk of contempt proceedings if even one instalment was missed
- Two separate courts were independently fixing maintenance for the same wife under Section 125 CrPC court and the Section 24 HMA court.
- The wife's petition included a few edited screenshots suggesting a foreign-holiday, high-society lifestyle that his actual GST filings and bank statements clearly did not support
- Reversing an order that had already been is passed by court is tougher than arguing a new case from the start. It required a revision petition with much stronger proof to convince the court to reverse an earlier decision.
How SPJ Advocates Handled It
Months 1 — Building the Financial Record
- Prepared a detailed affidavit of assets, income, and debts, in the court format set by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) case. This rule says both husband and wife must disclose their true financial position in a standard format so the court can easily compare the two sides.
- Submitted last three years of income tax returns, GST returns, and bank statements, clearly showing a genuine monthly income of approximately ₹2,50,000 from the manufacturing unit
- Filed a revision petition against the ex-parte order, pointing out that our client had never been given a proper opportunity to present his financial position before the ₹60,000 figure was fixed
Months 2–4 — Cross-Examination and Reconciling Two Courts
- During cross-examination in the maintenance proceedings, We proved that the wife was working full-time as a school teacher, earning approximately ₹35,000 a month — a fact she hide in her original petition
- We argued that the final maintenance amount must include whatever was already being paid in the other court. This way, the wife could not get double maintenance for the same time period from two different courts.
- Documented our client manufacturing unit’s actual monthly expenses, wage bill, and margins to demonstrate exactly how much our client could afford to pay maintenance without shutting down the business or laying off staff
- We submitted the evidence of client monthly expenses, staff salaries, and profit margins from his factory in the court to prove that he could not afford to pay such a high maintenance amount.
Months 5–6 — Negotiating One Consolidated Figure
- We negotiated a single, realistic maintenance amount with the wife's lawyer. This same amount was then represented before both courts, so there was no risk of the husband paying twice for the same period.
- We closed the revision petition once both courts recorded and accepted the maintenance amount, bringing the matter to a clean and enforceable conclusion.
The Result
Over 6 months, the maintenance amount brought down from ₹60,000 a month (the first order) to a fair ₹18,000 a month. This new amount was based on the wife's teaching income and what the client could really afford to pay. The two courts' orders were reconciled so he was never paying twice for the same period.
Facing an unrealistic maintenance demand in divorce case? Call SPJ Advocates at +91-8920245815 to consult your case
