The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, has held that a divorced wife who subsequently remarries ceases to fall within the definition of “wife” under Section 125(1) Explanation (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) / Section 144(1) Explanation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), thereby forfeiting her right to claim or continue receiving maintenance from her former husband. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed a criminal revision petition and set aside the Family Court’s direction to pay monthly maintenance to a remarried wife, while leaving the maintenance granted to the minor son untouched.
Background of the Case
The case originated from maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Case No. 621 of 2021) initiated by the wife (Opposite Party No. 2) for herself and her minor son against the husband (revisionist, Rajesh Chaturvedi) before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi.
The marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on July 30, 2025, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 583 of 2021 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Against the divorce decree, the husband preferred First Appeal No. 736 of 2025 before the High Court. During those appeal proceedings, the wife filed a short counter-affidavit and a notary affidavit admitting that she had remarried on September 3, 2025.
On October 30, 2025, the husband filed an objection before the Family Court in the Section 125 CrPC proceedings, informing the court of the wife’s remarriage on September 3, 2025, and asserting that under Section 125(1) Explanation (b) CrPC, a remarried wife is not entitled to maintenance.
Despite this objection, the Family Court passed an order on March 10, 2026, directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the wife from the date of filing the application (July 29, 2021) and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the minor son. Aggrieved by the award of maintenance to the wife, the husband filed Criminal Revision No. 3561 of 2026 before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the revisionist husband submitted that after performing a second marriage on September 3, 2025, the opposite party No. 2 ceased to be entitled to maintenance as a wife. The husband raised no objection to paying Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the minor son and expressed readiness to comply with that part of the Family Court’s order.
On the other hand, the father of the wife filed a counter-affidavit dated August 16, 2026, before the High Court, asserting in paragraph 13 that maintenance had been claimed by the wife only from the date of filing the application under Section 125 CrPC until the date of her remarriage, totaling an amount of Rs. 7,38,500/-. However, the High Court observed that no such restricted claim had been made by filing an application before the Trial Court, where she continued to claim maintenance representing herself as the wife of the revisionist. Additionally, counsel for the wife was unable to disclose or establish the precise date of her remarriage.
Response and Explanation of the Trial Court
During the proceedings, the High Court directed the presiding Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi to submit an explanation as to why maintenance was awarded despite the husband’s objection regarding remarriage. In his response dated July 15, 2026, the Family Court judge stated that the wife had not mentioned her remarriage in her pleadings or evidence, and the husband had not produced formal evidence or examined witnesses to prove the remarriage, leading the court to pass its order without finding the remarriage proved.
Court’s Analysis
Evaluating the material on record, the High Court noted that the factum of the wife’s remarriage was indisputably borne out from her own affidavits submitted in connected judicial proceedings. The court emphasized the core statutory purpose of maintenance provisions:
“It is also relevant to note that maintenance under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is an obligation intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution and is not a loan.”
“Therefore, in view of the subsequent remarriage of opposite party No.2 with another person, she is not entitled to receive maintenance from the revisionist.”
Analyzing the legal entitlement under the relevant statutory provisions, the High Court observed:
“It is well settled that, under Section 125(1) Explanation (b) Cr.P.C./144 (1) Explanation BNSS, a wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband, subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein. However, upon her remarriage, she ceases to fall within the ambit of the expression “wife” for the purposes of claiming maintenance from her former husband.”
“Consequently, after her remarriage, she cannot claim or continue to receive maintenance from the revisionist (husband).”
“Therefore, the direction contained in the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 awarding maintenance to opposite party No.2 (the remarried wife) cannot be sustained Section 125(1) Explanation (b) Cr.P.C./144 (1) Explanation BNSS and is, accordingly, set aside.”
Decision
The High Court modified the impugned order dated March 10, 2026, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, holding that the revisionist husband shall not be liable to pay any maintenance to the remarried wife. The court specified that the direction regarding the payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the minor son remains unaffected. The criminal revision was accordingly partly allowed.
Case Title: Rajesh Chaturvedi Versus State of U.P. and another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 3561 of 2026
Bench: Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
Date: August 18, 2026
