The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a Family Court order granting monthly maintenance to a woman under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that welfare provisions meant to protect dependent women must be interpreted liberally.
The Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband challenging the order directing him to pay ₹3,000 per month as maintenance to his wife.
Background of the Case
According to court records, the parties were married in May 2009 in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, following Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, they lived together in Delhi, but disputes arose soon after.
The woman alleged that she was subjected to repeated mistreatment and assault during the marriage and was eventually forced to leave the matrimonial home. Claiming that she had no independent income and was dependent on her family, she approached the Family Court seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
In February 2018, the Family Court directed the husband to pay ₹3,000 per month as maintenance along with litigation expenses of ₹11,000.
Before the High Court, the husband argued that the woman was already married before marrying him and had not obtained a formal divorce from her first husband. On that basis, he contended that she could not legally claim the status of “wife” under Section 125 CrPC.
His counsel also claimed that the Family Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the marriage had taken place in Muzaffarnagar. It was further argued that the maintenance amount was fixed without proof of his income and despite his alleged unemployment.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the Family Court had already examined all these objections in detail and passed a reasoned order after considering the material available on record. The High Court also noted that the husband chose not to lead evidence before the Family Court proceedings.
The Court recorded that the woman had stated she lived with her first husband only for a month and had not heard from him for nearly 12 years. It also noted that the husband was aware of these facts at the time of marriage.
Referring to earlier Supreme Court rulings, the Court said Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision intended to protect women from financial hardship and destitution.
“The term ‘wife’ under Section 125 CrPC does not warrant strict construction,” the Court observed while discussing the object behind maintenance laws.
Finding no illegality, perversity, or error in the Family Court’s order, the Delhi High Court dismissed the husband’s revision petition and upheld the maintenance awarded to the woman. Pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: RK v. PS
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 485/2018
Judge: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Decision Date: May 6, 2026
