The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Garima Prashad, has held that a husband who fraudulently suppresses his subsisting first marriage to induce a woman into marrying him cannot take advantage of his own wrong to deny her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Dismissing the husband’s petition challenging the maintenance order and partly allowing the wife’s revision petition, the High Court enhanced her monthly maintenance allowance from Rs 6,000 to up to Rs 12,000.
Background of the Case
The case stems from proceedings initiated under Section 125 CrPC on January 29, 2018, by the wife seeking maintenance from her husband. Their marriage was solemnized on December 12, 2016, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
It emerged that the husband had previously married another woman on February 29, 2008, and that first marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent only on November 15, 2017—nearly a year after his second marriage. Consequently, on the date of his marriage to the second wife, his earlier marriage was legally subsisting.
The Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, in an order dated November 24, 2023, found that the husband had fraudulently concealed his existing marriage from the wife, who entered the matrimonial relationship without knowledge of his prior marriage. The Family Court also rejected the husband’s claim that the marriage was performed forcibly at gunpoint. Holding that the wife was entitled to maintenance despite the strict legal invalidity of the marriage under personal law, the Family Court awarded her Rs 6,000 per month.
Both parties challenged the Family Court’s decision before the High Court. The husband filed Criminal Revision No. 491 of 2024 seeking to set aside the order on the ground that the marriage was void, while the wife filed Criminal Revision No. 196 of 2024 seeking an enhancement of the maintenance amount.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the husband contended that because the marriage was void due to the subsistence of his earlier marriage, the application under Section 125 CrPC was not maintainable, and no maintenance could legally be granted to the wife.
Counsel for the wife submitted that she entered the marriage in good faith without any knowledge of the husband’s prior subsisting marriage. Regarding the quantum of maintenance, it was argued that the Rs 6,000 monthly award was grossly inadequate given that the husband is a government servant working as a Lekhpal with a monthly income of around Rs 50,000 (and an admitted income of approximately Rs 35,000 in his financial affidavit).
Court’s Analysis and Precedents
The High Court rejected the husband’s contention that a void marriage automatically disentitles a duped wife from receiving maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Badshah vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another (2014), the Court observed that a husband who suppresses his prior marriage cannot profit from his fraudulent conduct. The High Court highlighted the following key observation from the ruling:
“We are dealing with a situation where the marriage between the parties has been proved. However, the petitioner was already married. But he duped the respondent by suppressing the factum of alleged first marriage. On these facts, in our opinion, he cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of maintenance to the respondent, taking advantage of his own wrong…. For the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., respondent No.1 would be treated as the wife of the petitioner.”
The Court also referenced Kamala and Others vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar (2019), noting that a beneficial and purposive interpretation of Section 125 CrPC is required to prevent destitution and exploitation when a woman is induced into marriage through concealment.
Addressing the quantum of maintenance, the High Court cited Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (2021), emphasizing that maintenance must enable the wife to live with dignity and reasonable comfort commensurate with the husband’s status and financial capacity. The Court noted that the husband is a permanent employee in the Revenue Department with a stable source of income and periodic increments, making the Family Court’s award of Rs 6,000 per month inadequate in light of the rising cost of living since 2018.
Decision of the Court
The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s ruling on maintainability and modified the maintenance schedule as follows:
- The husband must pay maintenance at the rate of Rs 10,000 per month from the date of filing of the application (January 29, 2018) until the date of the Family Court judgment (November 24, 2023).
- The husband must pay enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs 12,000 per month with effect from November 24, 2023, payable regularly by the 10th day of each succeeding month.
The Court directed that arrears of maintenance be calculated by the Family Court and paid by the husband within six months in six equal monthly installments alongside current monthly payments. The High Court further clarified that in case of default, the Family Court may recover the amount through attachment of the husband’s salary or salary account and other coercive legal measures.
Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 491 of 2024 (husband’s petition) was dismissed, and Criminal Revision No. 196 of 2024 (wife’s petition) was partly allowed.
Case Title: Smt Monika Alias Satyawati vs. State of UP and another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 196 of 2024
Bench: Justice Garima Prashad
Date: July 16, 2026
