The Madras High Court has upheld an order directing a man to pay ₹1 lakh per month as maintenance to a woman and ₹1.5 lakh per month for their minor child, holding that the woman’s ownership of a high-value flat and two luxury cars did not by itself establish that she had a regular income to support herself.
Justice Sunder Mohan dismissed the criminal revision and confirmed the order passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. The parties’ names are masked in the judgment and have therefore not been reproduced here.
Background
The woman approached the Family Court seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son. According to her case, she met the petitioner through a common friend in 2014 and was then working as a model. She stated that the petitioner introduced himself as a film producer and later said that he was running an educational institution. She claimed that although she initially knew he was married, he later told her that he had divorced his wife and showed her a divorce document.
The woman stated that the petitioner subsequently convinced her mother to agree to their relationship and that they underwent a marriage ceremony at a temple in Uthiramerur on January 20, 2020. According to her, they thereafter lived together and their son was born on March 15, 2021. She said that the petitioner and his family initially visited her and the child, but the petitioner stopped visiting them from June 2022.
She further claimed that after the birth of the child, she could not continue her work and therefore was unable to maintain herself and the child with her limited income. She alleged that the petitioner was earning ₹30 lakh per month and sought ₹6 lakh per month for herself and ₹4 lakh per month for the child. The petitioner disputed her allegations, including the alleged marriage and relationship, and claimed that she already knew he was legally married.
Before the Family Court, the woman examined herself as PW1, while the petitioner did not examine himself as a witness. The petitioner relied on a sale deed showing that the woman had purchased a property for ₹1.70 crore. The Family Court found that the petitioner had not effectively rebutted her evidence and held that she had been made to believe that he was a divorcee. It awarded ₹1 lakh per month to the woman and ₹1.5 lakh per month to the minor child.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the woman was not entitled to maintenance because she was aware of his earlier marriage. He also pointed to her purchase of a flat for ₹1.70 crore and her ownership of two luxury cars, arguing that she could not be treated as a person without means.
The High Court, however, found that the petitioner had not discharged the burden of establishing that his earlier marriage was still subsisting while also rebutting the woman’s evidence that she had been led to believe that he was divorced.
The Court observed:
“Therefore, this Court is of the view that 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.”
The Court further held that strict proof of marriage is not essential in a maintenance proceeding where the evidence shows that the relationship was continuous and existed for a sufficiently long period.
On the issue of the woman’s assets, the Court noted that the flat purchase and ownership of two luxury cars were not disputed. However, the evidence showed that she had no regular source of income after the child’s birth, and the petitioner had not produced evidence to establish otherwise.
Holding that the ₹1 lakh monthly maintenance awarded to the woman was reasonable, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the Family Court’s order. It also upheld the ₹1.5 lakh monthly maintenance awarded for the child.
The Court stated:
“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 and no interference is called for.”
The Court accordingly dismissed the criminal revision and confirmed the Family Court’s order dated March 13, 2026.
The connected criminal miscellaneous petition was also closed.
Case Details:
Case Title: X and Y
Case Number: CRL RC No. 1116 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sunder Mohan
Decision Date: September 21, 2026
