The Allahabad High Court held that strict proof of marriage should not defeat a maintenance claim where parties lived as husband and wife, setting aside a family court order that denied maintenance solely for want of legal marriage.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Achal Sachdev, partly allowed a criminal revision petition. It set aside an order of a family court that had refused maintenance to a woman on the ground that she was not a legally married wife.
The High Court remanded the case to the trial court for fresh consideration, holding that strict proof of a valid marriage is not essential for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) where cohabitation and the birth of a child are established.
In 2019, the revisionist moved an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking Rs.25,000 per month for herself and Rs.15,000 per month for her minor child.
ALSO READ: Highly Qualified Wife Choosing Not to Work Can’t Seek Maintenance: Allahabad High Court
She stated that she had filed for a court marriage with Opposite Party No. 2 on September 21, 2017. She alleged that soon after, her husband and his family began harassing her for additional dowry specifically demanding a four-wheeler. According to her case, she was beaten and sent out of her matrimonial home on October 23, 2017.
After village elders intervened, she was taken to live with her husband in his government quarters in Gorakhpur, where she later gave birth to a son. She further alleged continued mental and physical abuse, culminating on March 19, 2019, when she was allegedly confined, assaulted, and expelled after her stridhan was allegedly taken.
She has since been living with her parents along with her child, claiming she has no independent source of income. She stated that her husband works as a lab technician in a degree college and also has agricultural income.
On March 5, 2024, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj, rejected her maintenance claim because she allegedly failed to prove she was the legally wedded wife of Opposite Party No. 2. However, it granted Rs.5,000 per month as maintenance to the minor child, whom it described as an illegitimate child. Aggrieved by the denial to her, she approached the High Court.
The revisionist argued that she is the legally wedded wife of Opposite Party No. 2 and sought maintenance, alleging she was subjected to domestic violence and dowry harassment and is unable to support herself and her child.
Opposite Party No. 2, however, contended that the proposed court marriage was never legally solemnised, denied the marital relationship, and alleged that he was coerced into living with the revisionist under threats of false criminal cases.
He further accused her of cruelty, neglect of household responsibilities, maintaining an illicit relationship, and stated that these circumstances compelled him to file a divorce petition.
On perusal of the record, the High Court found that the trial court decided the marriage issue against the revisionist only because she produced a photocopy of the notice before the marriage officer. It held that the trial court reached this conclusion without recording proper reasons and ignored admitted facts regarding cohabitation and the birth of the son.
Criticising the trial court, the High Court observed,
“The manner in which the issue no.1 has been dealt with, without taking into consideration the fact that even though the applicant no.1 had not succeeded in proving the fact of her marriage to opposite party no. 2 but they were in a relationship as husband and wife for a considerable period of time and out of the relationship, a son was born, while assessing the point of entitlement of maintenance from opposite party no. 2 to the applicant no. 1, goes on to show clear non-application of mind in a cursory manner and mechanical manner and the trial court has not duly applied its mind to the facts, to the evidence that has been filed by the applicant no.1 before the trial court while holding that the applicant no.1 is not a legally wedded wife of opposite party in total ignorance of documentary evidence of birth certificate of applicant no.2 that has been filed by applicant no.1 in support of the fact that applicant no.2 is the son of opposite party.”
The High Court noted that Opposite Party No. 2 had admitted applying for a court marriage, living with the revisionist in his government accommodation, and fathering a child.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [(2014) 1 SCC 188], the High Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC must adopt a purposive and socially contextual approach, rather than insisting on a purely technical interpretation.
It said,
“where a man and a woman have lived together as husband and wife and the relationship is otherwise established, strict proof of a valid marriage should not be insisted upon so as to defeat the beneficial object of the provision.”
The High Court also observed that the trial court did not require the parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets, income, and liabilities, which is mandatory in view of Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324].
The Court noted,
“A decision rendered without consideration of the affidavits amounts to a departure from binding guidelines and reflects undue haste.”
On the scope of revision, the High Court cited Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa (Deceased) through LRs v. Mahendra Watch Company & Ors. [2026 INSC 348], while reiterating the principles from Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval [(1975) 2 SCC 246] and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78]. It held that a revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court unless the lower court’s findings are perverse, contrary to law, or lead to miscarriage of justice.
The High Court concluded that the trial court’s disregard of relevant admissions and circumstances justified interference.
The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision:
- It confirmed the trial court’s order granting ₹5,000 per month maintenance to the minor child, observing that under Section 125 CrPC, a father is required to maintain his child irrespective of whether the child is legitimate or illegitimate.
- It set aside the trial court’s rejection of the revisionist’s maintenance claim.
- It remanded the case to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj, directing a fresh decision on the revisionist’s entitlement in light of Opposite Party No. 2’s admissions and the purposive interpretation in Badshah.
- The High Court directed both parties to submit detailed affidavits on assets, income, and liabilities in the format laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, and ordered that the trial court determine the maintenance quantum based strictly on these affidavits and dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months.