The Madras High Court has held that the standard of proof required to establish a marriage in a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the same as that required to prove bigamy, and that the burden lies on the husband to establish that an earlier marriage was subsisting.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a man who denied his marriage to a woman after she sought maintenance, upholding an order directing him to pay Rs 1,00,000 for the wife and Rs 1,50,000 for their son, holding that a marriage may be presumed where a man and a woman have lived in a relationship for a long period [G v. A].
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sunder Mohan heard the matter.
Background
According to the wife’s case, she entered into a relationship with a man who told her he was divorced, showed her what appeared to be divorce documentation and persuaded her mother to consent to the marriage. The couple married in 2020, lived together and have a son. After the husband stopped visiting, she sought maintenance. In the proceedings, he denied that any marriage had taken place and disclosed that he had an earlier marriage, which, he contended, made any second union void. The Court was dealing with these rival positions in a maintenance claim and has not pronounced on any offence.
Standard of proof under Section 125
The Court drew a clear line between a maintenance proceeding and a prosecution for bigamy:
“The standard of proof to establish the marriage in a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be the same as that is required to prove the offence of bigamy.”
Meaning of ‘wife’
“‘wife’ as understood in Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has a wide connotation and the marriage is to be presumed if a man and a woman are in a relationship for a long period time.”
Burden on the husband
On the husband’s reliance on an earlier marriage, the Court held that the burden was on him, and that he had not discharged it:
“the burden is on the husband to establish that the earlier marriage was in subsistence.”
Order
The revision petition was dismissed, and the maintenance of Rs 1,00,000 for the wife and Rs 1,50,000 for the child stands.
Why The Madras High Court Judgment Matters
The ruling keeps a maintenance claim under Section 125 from turning into a trial of bigamy. A woman who has lived with a man for a long period as his wife need not prove a formal marriage to the standard of a criminal trial, and a husband who relies on a prior subsisting marriage to resist maintenance must prove it himself.
ALSO READ: Mother Can Claim Maintenance From Son Even If Husband Supports Her, Rules Kerala High Court
Case Title: G v. A [CRL RC No. 1116 of 2026]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
Bench: Justice Sunder Mohan, Madras High Court
Date of Judgment: October 5, 2026
For the Revision Petitioner (Husband): B. Kumar, Senior Counsel, instructed by T. Sudhan Raj
For the Respondent (Wife): Ms. B. Poongkhulali
