The Allahabad High Court has overturned a Chandauli family court's decision that had denied maintenance to a woman, Sweta Jaiswal, citing concealment of her husband's earlier marriage. The Court observed that until a marriage is legally annulled, a wife’s right to maintenance cannot be denied simply on assumptions.
Background
The dispute arose from Maintenance Petition No. 332 of 2015, filed by Sweta Jaiswal under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). She alleged cruelty and dowry demands by her husband, Santosh Jaiswal, and sought financial support. The Principal Judge of the Family Court in Chandauli had, however, rejected her claim in November 2017 while allowing maintenance of ₹2,000 per month for her minor daughter.
The family court relied on Section 125(4) CrPC, which bars maintenance if a wife refuses to live with her husband without reasonable cause. It reasoned that Sweta’s reference to her husband concealing his earlier marriage and divorce showed she was living separately without justification.
Court's Observations
Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla, hearing the criminal revision, disagreed with that finding.
"A mere passing reference to the previous marriage and divorce being concealed could not lead to any conclusion that the revisionist was willfully avoiding her duties as a wife," the bench remarked.
The High Court also pulled up the family court for relying on Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which deals with voidable marriages. The judge clarified that unless a marriage is annulled by a decree of nullity, the wife remains a legally wedded spouse with all corresponding rights, including maintenance.
"Merely on a hypothetical consideration that the said marriage could be annulled… the wife loses her right to claim maintenance is perverse and patently illegal," the court stated.
Justice Shukla further referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025 SCC OnLine SC 299), where it was held that even in void or voidable marriages, courts can grant maintenance or interim support depending on circumstances.
Decision
Setting aside the Chandauli family court’s order, the High Court allowed the revision petition. The matter has now been remanded back to the Family Court, Chandauli, with specific instructions to decide afresh on Sweta Jaiswal’s maintenance claim, without disturbing the allowance already granted to her minor daughter.
The family court has been directed to complete this exercise within three months after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard.
With this ruling, the High Court reaffirmed that a woman’s right to maintenance cannot be casually denied, especially when the marital bond itself has not been legally annulled.
Case Title: Sweta Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 3893 of 2017
Date of Decision: 24 September 2025