Case at a Glance
A Family Court in Chamba refused Section 125 CrPC maintenance to a wife because she was already receiving ₹7,000 a month under the Domestic Violence Act, and awarded only ₹3,000 a month for her school-going son. The husband, a Gram Rozgar Sewak, was shown to be earning ₹43,054 a month. The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that, with nothing to show the wife had any independent income, she should have been given reasonable maintenance over and above the DV Act amount. It granted her ₹3,000 a month more and raised the son’s maintenance to ₹6,000, both from January 2026.
The wife and her son filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC (Case No. 81 of 2022) before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chamba. The husband, who worked as a Gram Rozgar Sewak, was served but did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte. His salary certificate (Ext. PW-1/B) showed earnings of ₹43,054 a month as of 5 June 2024.
By an order dated 1 November 2025 the Family Court awarded ₹3,000 a month for the son but nothing to the wife, because she was already receiving ₹7,000 a month in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The wife and son filed a criminal revision in the High Court, arguing that she had no other income, that ₹7,000 was insufficient for her survival and basic needs, and that a school-going child needed more.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a Family Court deny Section 125 CrPC maintenance to a wife merely because she receives a monthly amount under the Domestic Violence Act, and was ₹3,000 a month adequate for a school-going child of a husband earning over ₹43,000?
Two Statutes, One Test: Is the Amount Enough to Live On?
The High Court looked first at the wife’s means. It recorded: “There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the wife has any independent source of income” apart from the ₹7,000 under the DV Act. Against the husband’s proved salary of ₹43,054 a month, and noting that his salary had likely increased since the certificate was issued, the Court held that the Family Court ought to have awarded the wife some reasonable maintenance over and above the DV Act amount instead of declining it altogether.
On the child, the Court held that ₹3,000 a month “cannot be construed as a reasonable amount to look after the basic needs of such a child,” given that he is school-going. It therefore modified the Family Court’s order: the wife gets ₹3,000 a month in addition to the ₹7,000 she receives under the DV Act, and the son’s maintenance is doubled to ₹6,000 a month, both from January 2026, the month in which the revision petition was filed.
What the Court Actually Held
- Receipt of ₹7,000 a month under the DV Act did not justify refusing Section 125 CrPC maintenance to a wife with no independent income.
- The husband must pay the wife ₹3,000 a month in addition to the DV Act amount, from January 2026.
- The school-going son’s maintenance was enhanced from ₹3,000 to ₹6,000 a month, from January 2026.
- The revision was partly allowed and the Family Court’s order of 1 November 2025 modified accordingly.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many women receive small amounts under the DV Act; this ruling shows that does not automatically shut the door on Section 125 CrPC maintenance.
- It ties maintenance to the husband’s proved income and the family’s actual needs, including the rising costs of a school-going child.
- A salary certificate proved the husband’s income even though he stayed away from court.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Wives and Mothers
- If what you get under the DV Act is not enough to live on, you can still seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS).
- Get the husband’s salary certificate or pay records on file; it was the key evidence here.
For Counsel
- Show the absence of independent income of the wife; the Court relied on the lack of any such evidence.
- Argue the husband’s likely increase in salary since the last certificate; the Court took that into account.
- In revisions, seek maintenance from the date of filing where the trial court’s award was inadequate; here the enhancement runs from January 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A DV Act award does not bar Section 125 CrPC maintenance.
- The wife now gets ₹7,000 under the DV Act plus ₹3,000 under Section 125.
- ₹3,000 a month was held inadequate for a school-going child; it is now ₹6,000.
- Proved salary of the husband drives the assessment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a wife get maintenance under both the DV Act and Section 125 CrPC?
In this case the High Court granted Section 125 maintenance “in addition to” the ₹7,000 she receives under the DV Act, because nothing showed she had any independent income and the amount was insufficient.
How much was the child awarded?
The son’s maintenance was enhanced from ₹3,000 to ₹6,000 a month from January 2026, as ₹3,000 was not reasonable for a school-going child’s basic needs.
What if the husband does not appear in court?
Here the husband was proceeded against ex parte, and his salary was proved through a salary certificate, which the courts relied on to fix maintenance.
Conclusion
The judgment is short but practical: an amount under one statute does not end the inquiry under another. The question is whether the wife and child can actually meet their basic needs from what they receive, measured against what the husband earns.
Practical takeaway: Where a DV Act award is modest, a wife without income can still claim reasonable maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, and child maintenance should reflect the needs of a school-going child.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com