The Gauhati High Court has overturned a Family Court order that directed a man to pay monthly maintenance to a woman claiming to be his wife. The court held that the woman failed to legally prove the dissolution of her earlier marriage, making her ineligible to claim maintenance under law.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Pranjal Das on January 20, 2026, in a criminal revision petition filed by Tufazzul Hussain against a maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Barpeta.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Suicide Abetment Case, Says Angry Words Alone Don’t Prove Criminal
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a petition filed by Fulmala Khatun before the Family Court, Barpeta, seeking monthly maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 144 of BNSS).
She claimed that:
- She was legally married to Tufazzul Hussain under Islamic law.
- She lived with him after marriage.
- She was subjected to cruelty and forced out of the matrimonial home.
- She had no independent source of income.
Based on her plea, the Family Court had ordered the husband to pay ₹3,000 per month as maintenance from November 17, 2021.
Aggrieved by this order, the husband approached the Gauhati High Court challenging the finding that the woman was his legally wedded wife.
Read Also:-Delhi High Court Rejects Sameer Wankhede’s Defamation Suit Against Netflix Show ‘Ba*ds
Arguments Before the High Court
The petitioner argued that:
- The woman was already married to another man, Manik Ali.
- There was no valid proof that her earlier marriage had been legally dissolved.
- A mere affidavit could not amount to a lawful divorce.
- Without proof of a valid divorce, she could not claim the status of a “wife” under Section 125 CrPC.
On the other hand, the woman maintained that:
- She had divorced her earlier husband.
- She later married the petitioner.
- She was unable to maintain herself and was entitled to support.
Court’s Observations
After examining the records and evidence, the High Court noted several critical gaps in the woman’s case.
The court observed that during cross-examination, the woman herself admitted:
- She was married to another man in 2000.
- She had three children from that marriage.
- Her first husband had not divorced her.
- She claimed to have divorced him through an affidavit.
Read Also:- UGC's 2026 Anti-Discrimination Rules Face Protest by Lawyers Near Allahabad High Court
However, the court made it clear that a marriage cannot be dissolved merely by an affidavit.
“The affidavit relied upon by the respondent cannot be treated as a valid dissolution of marriage,” the bench observed.
The court further pointed out that:
- No decree or legal proceeding under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, was produced.
- The alleged divorce document was not even formally exhibited before the Family Court.
- There was no proof that the earlier marriage had legally ended before the alleged second marriage.
The judge also reiterated the settled law that while strict proof of marriage is not required in maintenance cases, basic legal validity of marital status must still be shown.
Why the Maintenance Order Failed
The High Court emphasized that:
- A woman can claim maintenance only if she is legally married or legally divorced.
- If a prior marriage subsists, a second marriage has no legal recognition.
- Without proof of lawful divorce, the claim under Section 125 cannot stand.
The court noted:
“Without reasonable proof of dissolution of the earlier marriage, the respondent cannot claim the status of wife of the petitioner.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Odisha Land Dispute Orders, Says Section 47 CPC Misused After Decree
Final Decision of the Court
Allowing the revision petition, the Gauhati High Court:
- Set aside the Family Court’s order dated March 17, 2025.
- Cancelled the direction to pay ₹3,000 monthly maintenance.
- Held that the woman was not legally entitled to maintenance from the petitioner.
“The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and quashed,” the court ruled.
With this, the criminal revision petition was allowed and disposed of.
Case Title: Tufazzul Hussain vs Fulmala Khatun
Case Number: Crl. Rev. P. No. 212 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal Revision – Maintenance
Decision Date: 20 January 2026
