Karik Pertin Vs Smti Nibia Modi

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC040018562025

¶3

2026:GAU-AP:430

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Petn./255/2025

¶6

Karik Pertin

¶7

Son of Shri Apak Pertin, a permanent resident of Damro Village, PO and PS Mariyang, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Yupia, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Smti Nibia Modi

¶10

Daughter of Late Nibia Kully, a permanent resident of Potin Village, PO and PS Yazali, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing of Amba Village, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶11

Page No.# 2/6

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

¶13

Advocate for the petitioner	: Mr. C. Modi
Advocate for the Respondent	: Ms. T. Zim, ld. Adv.
Date on which Judgment is reserved	: 26.03.2026
Date of Hearing	: 26.03.2026
Date of Judgment and Order	: 05.05.2026

¶14

Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the Judgment? :No

¶15

Whether the full Judgment has been pronounced ? : Yes

¶16

JUDGMENT & ORDER

¶17

(CAV)

¶18

Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Zim, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

¶19

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the proceedings in Domestic Violence Case No. 34/2025, registered under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PWDV Act’), pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, as well as the order dated 03.09.2025 directing the petitioner to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 33,000/- (Rupees thirty-three thousand only) per month to the respondent.

¶20

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent/wife lodged a complaint

¶21

Page No.# 3/6

¶22

against the petitioner/husband on 02.06.2023, inter-alia alleging physical torture and mental harassment, resulting in the registration of Itanagar Women P.S Case No. 54/2023 under Sections 323/498A of the IPC. The said case was amicably resolved between the parties, and a deed of settlement was executed on 08.07.2023. Based on the said amicable settlement, this Hon’ble Court, by order dated 20.07.2023 in Criminal Petition No. 123/2023, quashed and set aside the FIR No. 0054.

¶23

4. Thereafter, the respondent again filed Domestic Violence Case being registered as No. 34/2025 against the petitioner under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, seeking protection order, under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 read with Section 23(2) of PWDV Act, to restrain the petitioner and his family members from committing acts of domestic violence against the complainant/respondent herein.

¶24

5. By order dated 03.09.2025, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, passed an order in the aforesaid D.V Case No. 34/2025, under Section 12 of PWDV Act and directed the respondent/petitioner herein to pay Rs. 33,000/(Rupees thirty-three thousand only) per month to the complainant/respondent herein.

¶25

6. Subsequently, the respondent wife also filed Maintenance Case No. 23/2025, under Section 144 of the BNSS against the petitioner/husband. By order dated 11.09.2025, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, passed an interim maintenance order directing the respondent/petitioner herein to pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month to the petitioner/respondent herein towards maintenance of the wife and children.

¶26

7. Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is

¶27

Page No.# 4/6

¶28

regularly paying maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) per month to the respondent/wife without challenging the maintenance order. And therefore, he challenges the order passed in D.V Case No. 34/2025, under Section 12 of PWDV Act whereby he has been directed to pay Rs.33,000/- to the respondent per month as according to him, such payment would amount to double payment of maintenance.

¶29

8 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that both the proceeding under DV case and the separate maintenance case can be maintained simultaneously. She further submitted that the order in DV case was passed prior to the order in the maintenance case. The petitioner while not challenging the later order for adjustment with the amount passed in the earlier order, if any, has challenged the earlier order passed in DV case selectively which according to her is not permissible. She further submitted that the parties have a minor child who is presently in the custody of the respondent/wife and looked after by her.

¶30

9. I have heard the rival submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the available documents on records.

¶31

10 . The basic grievance of the petitioner is that while he is regularly paying the maintenance amount, the order passed in DV case directing him to pay another amount of Rs.33,000/- to the respondent cannot be maintained. On the other hand the contention of the respondent is that both are two separate proceedings and can be maintained at the same time.

¶32

11 . Proceedings under the PWDV Act and separate maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) are independent but overlapping remedies. The wife is legally entitled to pursue

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

both remedies simultaneously; however, she cannot receive double maintenance for the same purpose. The husband (petitioner) has the option to challenge any adverse order, whether earlier or subsequent. However, if a subsequent order modifies or grants additional maintenance, the proper course is to challenge the subsequent order or seek adjustment, rather than selectively challenging only the earlier order. Failure to challenge the later order while complying with it may amount to acquiescence.

¶35

12. In view of the above, this Court is not convinced that any case of lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process is made out so as to warrant quashing of the domestic violence proceedings in exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. The prayer for quashing the proceedings in D.V Case No. 34/2025 is, therefore, declined.

¶36

13. As regards, the challenge to the maintenance award dated 03.09.2025 passed in D.V. Case No. 34/2025, under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, it is settled that parallel remedies may be pursued by the wife. However, as observed above, there cannot be duplication of maintenance.

¶37

14. In the present case, the petitioner has not assailed the subsequent order dated 11.09.2025 passed in Maintenance Case No. 23/2025, under Section 144 of the BNSS granting Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month, and he is regularly complying with the same while challenging the order passed in DV case which was passed prior to the order passed in the maintenance case. A selective challenge confined to the earlier order is, in the considered opinion of this Court, therefore is misconceived.

¶38

15. However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month paid by the petitioner

¶39

Page No.# 6/6

¶40

pursuant to the subsequent maintenance order shall be adjusted/set-off against the amount awarded in the domestic violence proceedings. The petitioner shall be liable to pay only the balance, if any, in terms of the order passed in the domestic violence proceedings, subject to order (s) passed by the competent court.

¶41

16. In view of the above, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the competent court for modification/alteration of the maintenance amounts, placing on record all subsequent developments in the matter, including the agreement dated 19.07.2025 regarding property and liability of EMIs.

¶42

17. With the above observations, this petition stands dismissed at the admission stage.

¶43

18. The Trial Court Record be sent back.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Karik Pertin v. Smti Nibia Modi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karik Pertin v. Smti Nibia Modi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mori Riba Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Apurbo Roy Vs The Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board and Anr.

Sandeep Bharali Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Smti Techi Menia Vs Taba Tem

Ogom Tayeng Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Niglar Veo Vs The State of Ap and 5 Ors.