The Madras High Court has upheld a family court order granting monthly maintenance of ₹1 lakh to a woman and ₹1.5 lakh to her minor son, holding that her ownership of a ₹1.7 crore flat and two luxury cars did not defeat her claim as she had no regular source of income.
Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed a man’s revision petition and affirmed a family court order directing him to pay monthly maintenance to a woman and their minor son, holding that the standard of proof of marriage in a claim under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be the same as that required to prove the offence of bigamy.
Justice Sunder Mohan held that where the relationship is shown to have been continuous and of sufficiently long duration, the marriage can be presumed.
The case
According to the woman’s case, she met the man in 2014 when she was working as a model. She alleged that he initially presented himself as a film producer and later claimed to run an educational institution. After he allegedly showed her a divorce decree, the two married at a temple in Uthiramerur in January 2020, and a son was born in March 2021. She said the man stopped contact with her from June 2022.
The Family Court directed the man to pay ₹1 lakh per month to the woman and ₹1.5 lakh per month for the minor son. It found that the man had misled the woman about his marital status and could not take advantage of his own wrong. The man challenged the order before the High Court, contending that there was no valid marriage and that the woman knew he was already married. He also argued that she had sufficient means, as she owned a flat worth ₹1.7 crore and two luxury cars, so maintenance was unnecessary.
Proof of marriage
Rejecting the argument that strict proof of marriage was needed, the Court held:
“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 … if it is shown that the relationship was continuous and for a sufficiently long time, the marriage can be presumed”
Assets and quantum
On the woman’s assets, the Court held that ownership of the flat and the cars did not negate her claim, as she had no regular income after the birth of the child. The man’s monthly income was assessed at ₹10 lakh. On the quantum, the Court observed:
“Considering the status of the parties and the fact that the 1st respondent had established that she had no regular source of income, the maintenance quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- is reasonable.”
Why The Monthly Maintenance Judgment Matters
The ruling clarifies that a maintenance claimant’s ownership of property does not by itself disqualify her where she lacks a regular income, and that the proof of marriage required in summary maintenance proceedings is lower than in a criminal trial for bigamy. A long and continuous relationship can support a presumption of marriage, which keeps the protective purpose of Section 125 CrPC intact.
Case: Criminal revision against a Family Court maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC
Bench: Justice Sunder Mohan, Madras High Court
Appearance: Senior Advocate B. Kumar, instructed by T. Sudhan Raj, for the petitioner; Advocate B. Poongkhulali for the respondent