In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu dismissed a woman’s plea seeking interim maintenance from a man with whom she claimed to have been in a live-in relationship. The court emphasized that once the man stood convicted for rape on her complaint, their relationship could not be legally treated as that of husband and wife for the p
Background
The matter originated in Kathua district, where the trial magistrate had in 2017 ordered interim maintenance of ₹2,000 per month for the woman (petitioner no.1) and ₹1,000 for her minor child (petitioner no.2). Later, in 2021, the Principal Sessions Judge revised the order, striking down maintenance for the woman but allowing it for the child.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Rejects Divorce Plea, Upholds Maintenance and Property Rights in Long Matrimonial Dispute
The woman challenged this revision before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the order was contrary to law and ignored Supreme Court precedents recognizing the rights of women in live-in relationships.
Her counsel referred to Chanmuniya vs. Virendera Kumar Singh Kushwaha and other judgments where the Supreme Court had held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social justice provision intended to protect women and children from destitution, even extending benefits to those in long-term relationships resembling marriage.
The petitioner's stance was that she had lived with the man for nearly a decade, borne a child in 2016, and was therefore entitled to maintenance despite the absence of formal marriage.
Court's Observations
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, after hearing both sides, underlined the peculiar nature of this case. The bench noted that the petitioner herself had filed a rape complaint against the man, leading to his conviction under Section 376 IPC.
"The relationship between parties as husband and wife imposes an obligation on both to cohabit and live together. But if the woman has alleged and proved rape against the man, then such a bond of husband and wife cannot legally exist," the court remarked.
The judge reasoned that if the parties were truly cohabiting as husband and wife, then consensual intimacy would not amount to rape. The fact of conviction under Section 376 made it clear that the arrangement could not be recognized as a lawful or even a de facto marital relationship.
It was also observed that while courts have widened the definition of "wife" in maintenance law to protect women from destitution, the principle cannot extend to situations where the same relationship has been judicially determined as non-consensual and criminal.
Decision
The High Court upheld the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, which had denied interim maintenance to the woman but continued support for her minor child. Justice Koul categorically stated that "no illegality or irregularity" was committed by the Revisional Court in reaching that conclusion.
Consequently, the woman's petition was dismissed, and the order disallowing her interim maintenance claim was affirmed. However, the child’s entitlement to ₹1,000 monthly maintenance remains protected.
Case Title: Murti Devi & Anr. vs. Balkar Singh
Date of Decision: 16 September 2025
