The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision filed by a woman seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), holding that she failed to establish the existence of a legally recognized marriage or even a live-in relationship with the respondent. The Court found no error in the Family Court's decision, which had granted maintenance only to the couple's biological minor child while rejecting the woman's own claim.
Background of the Case
The revision was filed by Manju Sonkar against an order dated July 15, 2022, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi, in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court had declined her request for maintenance after concluding that she was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent. However, maintenance was awarded to the biological minor child born from the relationship.
Before the High Court, the revisionist argued that she had married the respondent without knowing that he was already married. She contended that she should not be denied maintenance merely because the respondent's earlier marriage was subsisting, particularly when she had allegedly entered the relationship in good faith. She relied on earlier judicial precedents, including Anupama Pradhan v. Sultan Pradhan and Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, to support her claim.
Court's Observations
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla examined the precedents cited by the revisionist and found that they did not apply to the present dispute.
The Court noted that the Orissa High Court decision in Anupama Pradhan involved parties belonging to a Scheduled Tribe community where different legal considerations applied, making it distinguishable from the present case.
The Court also considered the Supreme Court's ruling in Chanmuniya, which discussed maintenance in cases involving long-term cohabitation. However, it observed that the facts were materially different.
"The very existence of the marital relationship has been specifically denied and the revisionist has failed to establish the solemnization of marriage between the parties."
The bench further observed that there was neither any pleading nor any evidence suggesting that the parties had lived in a live-in relationship. In such circumstances, the legal principles applicable to live-in relationships could not be invoked.
Court's Decision
After reviewing the record, the High Court held that the Family Court had passed a reasoned order based on the evidence before it. The Court found no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error requiring interference in its revisional jurisdiction.
"This Court finds no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference."
Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed, leaving the Family Court's order unchanged.
Case Details
Case Title: Manju Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 3086 of 2025
Judge: Hon'ble Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla
Decision Date: July 23, 2026
