Can a Wife Claim Maintenance Under Both the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 CrPC (Now Section 144 BNSS)? — What Women in Uttar Pradesh Should Know in 2026

Indian law gives a married woman multiple, independent doors to claim maintenance. Each arises under a different statute, is decided by a different forum, and serves a slightly different purpose. A woman in Uttar Pradesh can use one or more of them.

The first two — Section 144 BNSS and the DV Act — are the most used because they are faster and cheaper than a full civil suit. A family lawyer in Lucknow will usually advise filing under both to maximise protection.

The legal foundation for claiming maintenance under both laws is Section 36 of the Domestic Violence Act. It states that the Act's provisions are "in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force." In plain words, the DV Act adds to your rights — it does not replace Section 144 BNSS or the Hindu Marriage Act.

This means a wife in Uttar Pradesh can:

• File a DV Act complaint before the Magistrate seeking monetary relief under Section 20.
• Simultaneously file a Section 144 BNSS petition before the Family Court.
• Also seek interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act if a divorce or restitution case is pending.

Courts treat these as parallel tracks. The only safeguard is the anti-double-recovery rule from the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020): the wife must disclose what she already receives under one law, and the second court adjusts its award so she is not paid twice for the same purpose. The right to claim maintenance survives in full; only the arithmetic is reconciled.

Although both give maintenance, they are not identical. Understanding the difference helps a woman in Lucknow choose the right combination of remedies.

The DV Act is broader — it can cover rent for a separate house, medical bills, and a residence order in the shared household, which Section 144 BNSS cannot give. But Section 144 BNSS is secular and available to all religions, and its orders are widely enforced. Many women in Uttar Pradesh therefore use the DV Act for the residence and compensation, and Section 144 BNSS for a clean, enforceable monthly figure. If domestic cruelty is also alleged, a parallel criminal complaint may follow.

UP husbands frequently argue: "She is a graduate" or "She can earn, so she deserves nothing." The courts have firmly rejected this. In Smt. Suman Verma v. State of U.P. (2026), the Allahabad High Court set aside a Family Court order that had denied maintenance to a qualified wife, holding that mere possession of educational qualifications does not establish financial independence.

The key principles the Court applied are:

• Maintenance is a legal right arising from marriage and parenthood, not discretion or charity.
• A degree on paper is not proof of actual income; capacity to earn is not the same as earning.
• A wife's refusal to resume cohabitation does not automatically bar her claim under Section 144(5) BNSS, following Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto.

So an educated homemaker who is not actually earning a sufficient income can still claim maintenance under both the DV Act and Section 144 BNSS. The husband must prove she has a real, adequate income — not merely the theoretical ability to find work. This is a recurring issue in maintenance disputes before the Lucknow Family Court.

The biggest worry husbands raise is paying maintenance "two or three times over." The Supreme Court resolved this in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) with binding guidelines now followed across Uttar Pradesh. The rule is simple: a wife may claim under several laws, but she cannot recover the same amount twice.

1. The wife must disclose in her affidavit every maintenance order or amount she already receives.
2. The second court takes the earlier amount into account while fixing its own figure.
3. If one forum has already granted an adequate sum, the second forum may grant a top-up or decline a fresh amount — it does not stack blindly.

For example, if the DV Magistrate grants Rs 8,000 per month and the Family Court later finds Rs 15,000 just, the Family Court typically orders the balance of Rs 7,000, not a fresh Rs 15,000. Both orders remain valid; the husband simply pays one fair total. Honest income disclosure by both spouses, in the Rajnesh format, is now mandatory in every maintenance case.

For a woman living in Lucknow or anywhere in Uttar Pradesh, the right forum depends on which remedy she chooses. Filing in the correct court avoids delay and dismissal on technical grounds.

If a Family Court wrongly denies maintenance, the remedy is a criminal revision or writ before the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow — exactly the route that succeeded in Suman Verma. Limitation and proper drafting matter, so a woman should not delay. A short consultation with a maintenance lawyer can map which combination of remedies fits her situation and how much she can realistically claim.

Advocate Onkar Pandey is a practicing lawyer at the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench with over 25 years of experience in family law, maintenance and divorce matters, criminal law, and civil litigation. Enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (No. UP/4825/1999), he represents women and men in maintenance petitions under Section 144 BNSS, Domestic Violence Act complaints, and revisions before the High Court. For legal consultation regarding maintenance under the DV Act and Section 125 CrPC, contact Advocate Onkar Pandey at +91 98392 71553, chamber A-406, High Court, Lucknow.