The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Achal Sachdev, has partly allowed a criminal revision petition, setting aside a family court’s order that denied maintenance to a woman on the grounds that she was not a legally wedded wife. The High Court remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh adjudication, holding that strict proof of a valid marriage is not mandatory for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when cohabitation and the birth of a child are established.
Background of the Case
The revisionist filed an application under Section 125 CrPC in 2019 seeking maintenance of Rs 25,000 per month for herself and Rs 15,000 per month for her minor child. She stated that she had applied for a court marriage with the opposite party no. 2 on September 21, 2017. She alleged that shortly after, her husband and in-laws began harassing her for additional dowry, specifically demanding a four-wheeler.
According to her petition, she was beaten and expelled from her matrimonial home on October 23, 2017. Following the intervention of village elders, her husband took her to live in his government quarters in Gorakhpur, where she subsequently gave birth to a son. She asserted that the mental and physical abuse by her husband and in-laws continued, culminating on March 19, 2019, when they allegedly confined her, assaulted her, and drove her out after seizing her stridhan. Since then, she has resided at her parental home with her child, asserting she has no independent source of income, while her husband earns as a lab technician at a degree college and possesses agricultural income.
On March 5, 2024, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj, denied maintenance to the revisionist on the ground that she failed to prove she was the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no. 2, though it granted Rs 5,000 per month in maintenance to her minor child, whom the court labeled an “illegitimate child.” Aggrieved by the denial of her maintenance, the revisionist approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist is indeed the wife of the opposite party no. 2, was subjected to domestic violence and dowry harassment, and is currently unable to support herself and her child.
Conversely, the counsel representing the opposite party no. 2 argued that while an application for a court marriage was submitted to the District Magistrate on September 21, 2017, the marriage was never legally formalized. He submitted that he lived with the revisionist in his Gorakhpur quarters under pressure and threats of false criminal cases from her and her family, which led his own family to disown him. He claimed that the revisionist was quarrelsome, neglected household responsibilities, maintained illicit relations, and subjected him to physical and mental harassment, prompting him to file a divorce petition to protect himself.
The Court’s Analysis
Upon perusing the record, the High Court observed that the trial court had decided the issue of marriage against the revisionist simply because she had only produced a photocopy of the notice before the Marriage Officer. The High Court pointed out that the trial court reached this conclusion without recording tangible reasons, ignoring the admitted facts of cohabitation and the birth of their child.
Criticizing the trial court’s approach, the High Court observed:
“The manner in which the issue no.1 has been dealt with, without taking into consideration the fact that even though the applicant no.1 had not succeeded in proving the fact of her marriage to opposite party no. 2 but they were in a relationship as husband and wife for a considerable period of time and out of the relationship, a son was born, while assessing the point of entitlement of maintenance from opposite party no. 2 to the applicant no. 1, goes on to show clear non-application of mind in a cursory manner and mechanical manner and the trial court has not duly applied its mind to the facts, to the evidence that has been filed by the applicant no.1 before the trial court while holding that the applicant no.1 is not a legally wedded wife of opposite party in total ignorance of documentary evidence of birth certificate of applicant no.2 that has been filed by applicant no.1 in support of the fact that applicant no.2 is the son of opposite party.”
The High Court highlighted that the opposite party no. 2 had candidly admitted to applying for a court marriage, cohabiting with the revisionist in his government accommodation, and the birth of their child.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [(2014) 1 SCC 188], the High Court reiterated that a purposive and socially contextual approach must be adopted in Section 125 CrPC proceedings, rather than relying on technical interpretations. The High Court quoted:
“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 High Court also noted that the trial court failed to direct the parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets, income, and liabilities, which is mandatory under the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324]. The Court stated:
“A decision rendered without consideration of the affidavits amounts to a departure from binding guidelines and reflects undue haste.”
In addressing its own revisional powers, the High Court cited Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa (Deceased) through LRs v. Mahendra Watch Company & Ors. [2026 INSC 348] (reiterating principles from Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval [(1975) 2 SCC 246] and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78]), noting that a revisional court cannot act as an appellate court to re-analyse evidence unless the findings of the lower court are perverse, contrary to law, or result in a miscarriage of justice. It found that the trial court’s complete disregard of material admissions and circumstances warranted such interference.
The Decision
The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision. It affirmed the trial court’s order granting Rs 5,000 per month as maintenance to the minor child, noting that Section 125 CrPC legally obligates a father to maintain his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate.
However, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order rejecting the maintenance claim of the revisionist. The Court remanded the matter back to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj, for fresh adjudication of her entitlement to maintenance in light of the opposite party no. 2’s admissions and the purposive legal interpretation established in the Badshah case.
The High Court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits of disclosure of assets, income, and liabilities in the format prescribed in Rajnesh v. Neha, ordering the trial court to determine the quantum of maintenance strictly based on these affidavits and dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months.
Case Details:
Case Title: Smt Sushila Versus Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 3622 of 2024
Bench: Justice Achal Sachdev
Date: July 10, 2026
