Woman Living With Another Man Without Divorcing First Husband Seeks Maintenance As Wife Allahabad Hc Says She Was Not Legally Married To Him Claim Rejected

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a woman is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after finding that she failed to prove she was the man's legally wedded wife. However, the court refused to interfere with the maintenance granted to their minor daughter, holding that a father's obligation to maintain his child remains irrespective of the marital status of the parents. The judgment was delivered by Justice Achal Sachdev while partly allowing a criminal revision filed by Santosh Kumar against a Family Court order passed in Chitrakoot. Why did the High Court interfere with the Family Court's order? The Family Court had directed Santosh Kumar to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 2,000 to the woman, Ranno, and Rs 1,000 to their minor daughter from the date the maintenance petition was filed. Santosh challenged the order before the High Court, arguing that Ranno could not claim maintenance because she was already married to another man when she started living with him. He contended that she had never legally dissolved her first marriage and, therefore, could not be treated as his legally wedded wife. What did the court find about the woman's marriage? While examining the evidence, the High Court noted that Ranno herself admitted during cross-examination that she had earlier married Sharda Prasad and had two children from that marriage. She also acknowledged that she had never obtained a divorce from her first husband before she began living with Santosh Kumar. The judgment further records that she admitted her first husband was alive when she started residing with Santosh. The High Court also took note of the Family Court's own finding that she had failed to prove a valid marriage with Santosh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. In these circumstances, Justice Sachdev held that she did not satisfy the legal requirement of being a wife under Section 125 CrPC. As a result, the court concluded that the maintenance awarded to her could not be sustained. Why did the daughter continue to receive maintenance? Although the High Court set aside the maintenance granted to the mother, it reached a different conclusion regarding the minor daughter. The court relied on a DNA report that confirmed Santosh Kumar was the biological father of the child. Once paternity stood established, the court held that the child was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The judgment observed that it is both the legal and moral duty of a father to maintain children who are unable to maintain themselves, whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. Finding no error in the Family Court's reasoning on this issue, the High Court allowed the maintenance awarded to the daughter to continue. What was the dispute before the courts? According to the maintenance petition, Ranno claimed that she married Santosh Kumar in June 2006 and that they later had a daughter together. She alleged that after a few years, Santosh stopped supporting the family, assaulted her and their daughter, and neglected their day-to-day needs. Claiming she had no independent source of income and that her daughter required financial support for education, food and medical expenses, she sought monthly maintenance from Santosh. On the other hand, Santosh argued that the relationship could not be treated as a valid marriage because Ranno's first husband was alive when they began living together. What did the Allahabad High Court finally order? The High Court partly allowed Santosh Kumar's revision petition. It set aside the portion of the Family Court's order granting Rs 2,000 monthly maintenance to Ranno, holding that she was not legally entitled to claim maintenance as a wife under Section 125 CrPC. However, it upheld the direction requiring Santosh Kumar to pay Rs 1,000 per month to his minor daughter, observing that the Family Court's finding on the child's entitlement was well reasoned and required no interference.Check the case judgement here: