The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on the hypothetical ground that her marriage is voidable. Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla set aside an order by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli, which had refused maintenance to a wife, terming the lower court’s reasoning “perverse and patently illegal.” The matter has been remanded for a fresh decision on the wife’s claim.
Background of the Case
The case reached the High Court through a criminal revision petition filed by a wife against a judgment dated November 2, 2017. The Family Court, Chandauli, had rejected her personal maintenance claim against her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C., although it had granted Rs. 2,000 per month for the maintenance of their minor daughter.
The High Court noted that despite notices being duly served upon the husband and several peremptory orders being passed, he did not appear to contest the revision petition.
Arguments Before the Court
Appearing for the revisionist-wife, counsels Bipin Kumar and Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui argued that the Family Court had erred in refusing maintenance. The sole ground for refusal was based on Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., with the Family Court concluding that the wife was living separately without sufficient reason. The lower court opined that the wife’s reason for not staying with her husband was his concealment of a previous marriage and divorce.
The revisionist’s counsel contended that this finding was “absolutely perverse.” It was argued that the primary allegations in the maintenance application were of cruelty and demand for dowry. The concealment of the first marriage was only a “passing reference” in her pleadings and statement, which the Family Court misinterpreted as the sole reason for her living separately.
The husband’s stand before the Family Court was that the revisionist’s behavior was “atrocious” and that she treated his family members with cruelty.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla, upon examining the records, found that the Family Court had drawn an inference “which is alien to the contentions of the parties.” The High Court observed that a “mere passing reference to the previous marriage and divorce being concealed from the revisionist could not lead to any conclusion that the revisionist was willfully avoiding her duties as a wife and was living separately from her husband without reasonable cause.”
The High Court heavily scrutinized the Family Court’s reliance on Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which pertains to voidable marriages where consent is obtained by fraud. The Family Court had reasoned that if a marriage could be annulled for such concealment, the wife would not be entitled to maintenance.
Justice Shukla found this reasoning to be a fundamental error in law. The judgment stated, “Unless and until, a marriage, which is voidable, has been declared a nullity by a decree, the status of the revisionist as the legally wedded wife of the opposite party No.2 persists and all the rights that flow from the same continuous.”
The Court further held that denying maintenance based on a “hypothetical consideration” that the marriage could be annulled was improper, especially when no such annulment proceedings had been initiated by either party. The Court declared that “denial of relief of maintenance on the incorrect assumption of the applicability of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, 1955 was clearly illegal and perverse.”
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Sukhbir Kaur (2025 SCC OnLine SC 299), which held that maintenance can be granted even if a marriage is found to be void or voidable, as the grant of such relief is discretionary and depends on the facts of the case.
Decision
Concluding its analysis, the High Court ruled that the Family Court’s finding that the revisionist was disentitled to maintenance under the bar of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. was “patently illegal and perverse and is liable to be set aside.”
The criminal revision was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli. The court has been directed to pass a fresh order on the wife’s maintenance claim in light of the High Court’s observations. The maintenance awarded to the minor daughter remains undisturbed. The Family Court has been ordered to decide the case within three months after giving due notice to the parties.
