The Allahabad High Court has set aside a Family Court order that denied maintenance to a woman after holding that she was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The High Court ruled that the Family Court failed to consider crucial admissions made by the man, including that the parties had lived together and had a child from their relationship. The matter has now been sent back for a fresh decision.
Background of the Case
The revision petition was filed by Smt. Sushila, challenging the order dated March 5, 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj, in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
According to the woman, she and Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary had applied for a court marriage in September 2017 and later lived together as husband and wife. She alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry-related harassment before being forced to leave the matrimonial home in March 2019. She sought monthly maintenance of ₹25,000 for herself and ₹15,000 for her minor son, claiming she had no independent source of income while the respondent was employed as a laboratory technician and also earned from agriculture.
The respondent disputed the existence of a legally valid marriage but admitted that they had applied for a court marriage, lived together in his government accommodation, and that a child was born from their relationship.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice Achal Sachdev found that the Family Court had approached the issue mechanically. Although it concluded that the woman was not the legally wedded wife, it simultaneously accepted that the child was born from the relationship between the parties.
The High Court observed that the trial court overlooked important admissions made by the respondent regarding their cohabitation, their intention to marry, and the birth of the child. It also ignored documentary evidence, including the child's birth certificate, while deciding the woman's entitlement to maintenance.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, the Court reiterated that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC must be interpreted in a socially beneficial manner.
"The bench observed, '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 Court also noted that the Family Court had not directed the parties to file affidavits disclosing their income, assets and liabilities, despite the mandatory guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. Such disclosures, it said, are necessary for determining a fair amount of maintenance.
Decision
Partly allowing the criminal revision, the High Court set aside the Family Court's refusal to grant maintenance to Sushila and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication of her claim after considering the respondent's admissions and the applicable legal principles.
At the same time, the Court upheld the Family Court's direction granting ₹5,000 per month as maintenance to the minor child, observing that Section 125 CrPC obliges a father to maintain his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, if the child is unable to maintain himself.
The High Court further directed both parties to file detailed affidavits disclosing their income, assets and liabilities. It instructed the Family Court to determine the maintenance claim afresh on the basis of those affidavits and the evidence on record, preferably within three months.
Case Details:
Case Title: Smt. Sushila v. Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 3622 of 2024
Judge: Justice Achal Sachdev
Decision Date: July 10, 2026
