S.125 CrPC | Woman Induced Into Marriage By Concealment Of Husband's Existing Marriage Entitled To Maintenance: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently held that a woman who is induced into marriage by concealment of the husband's existing marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even though the marriage between the parties is void.
A bench of Justice Garima Prashad noted that a husband cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and deny maintenance to the woman who had entered into the marriage without knowledge of the subsisting earlier marriage.
The single judge thus dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by the husband challenging the Family Court's order granting maintenance. However, it partly allowed the wife's revision plea seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount.
In her plea, the wife had sought enhancement of maintenance on the ground that the amount of Rs. 6000/- per month awarded by the Family Court was wholly inadequate considering that the husband is a government servant and earns around Rs. 50000/- per month.
On the other hand, the husband contended that the application filed on behalf of the wife under Section 125 CrPC itself was not maintainable as the marriage between the parties was not a valid marriage in the eyes of law.
According to him, his earlier marriage had not been dissolved on the date of the alleged marriage with the woman.
In this case, the parties allegedly married on December 12, 2016; however, the husband's first marriage solemnized on February 29, 2008, came to be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent only on November 15, 2017.
Thus, on the date of the alleged marriage, his earlier marriage admittedly subsisted.
The Family Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the marriage ceremonies between the parties had in fact been performed according to Hindu rites and customs.
It rejected the husband's plea that the marriage had been solemnised forcibly at gunpoint and further found that he had concealed the fact of his subsisting marriage from the woman who had entered into the matrimonial relationship without knowledge of his existing marriage.
Although the marriage was not valid in the strict sense of law owing to the subsistence of the husband's earlier marriage, the Family Court held that the woman was nevertheless entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Upholding the findings of the Family Court, Justice Prashad rejected the husband's contention that the woman could not be granted maintenance merely because the marriage was void.
Justice Prashad relied upon the Supreme Court's decisions in Badshah v Sou Urmila Badshah Godse 2013 and Kamala and Others v MR Mohan Kumar 2018 to note that where a husband conceals his subsisting first marriage and induces a woman to marry him, he cannot be permitted to deny maintenance to the woman who had entered into the marriage without knowledge of the subsisting earlier marriage.
The Court further noted that a beneficial and purposive interpretation of Section 125 CrPC is required to prevent exploitation and destitution in such cases.
Hence, the Court found no illegality in the Family Court's finding that the husband had fraudulently concealed his subsisting marriage and that the woman had no knowledge of it.
Consequently, the bench concluded that the revisionist-wife was rightly held entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC notwithstanding the invalidity of the marriage under personal law.
Regarding the wife's revision plea seeking enhancement of maintenance, the Court observed that the Family Court had already found that the husband was employed as a Lekhpal in the Revenue Department and possessed sufficient means to maintain her.
It also noted that in his affidavit relating to assets, income, and expenditure, the husband had disclosed his monthly income to be approximately Rs. 35,000/-.
Considering that the husband is a permanent government employee serving as a Lekhpal with a stable source of income, coupled with the increase in the cost of living since the maintenance proceedings were instituted in 2018, the Court found the maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the High Court enhanced the maintenance payable to the woman to Rs. 12,000/- per month with effect from November 24, 2023. It also directed that the arrears be cleared within 6 months in 6 equal monthly instalments.
The Court also clarified that in the event of default in payment of any instalment of arrears or current maintenance, it would be open to the Family Court to recover the amount by attachment of the husband's salary and/or salary account and by adopting all other coercive measures available in law.
Case title - Monika Alias Satyawati vs. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 468
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 468