S. 125 CrPC | Strict Proof Of Marriage Not Required If Cohabitation As Husband & Wife Is Established: Allahabad High Court

Referring to the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Badshah vs Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr, a bench of Justice Achal Sachdev stressed that a purposive and socially contextual approach must be adopted while dealing with maintenance claims, rather than adhering to a purely adversarial or technical interpretation of the law

The Court made these observations while partially allowing a criminal revision petition filed by a woman challenging a March 2024 order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj.

The Family Court had rejected her maintenance application on the sole ground that she failed to produce documentary proof showing she was the legally wedded wife of the opposite party.

In her plea under Section 125 CrPC, the revisionist had stated that the couple had applied for a court marriage in September 2017. She alleged that shortly after, her husband/partner and in-laws harassed her for additional dowry, particularly demanding a four-wheeler.

She also alleged that she was confined and assaulted by them, and ultimately, they drove her out of her matrimonial home along with their minor son.

Therefore, she sought ₹25,000 per month as maintenance for herself and ₹15,000 for her child.

On the other hand, the husband/partner contended that the formal court marriage was not legally formalized, though they had applied for the same.

Furthermore, he admitted that he subsequently brought her to live with him in his government quarters in Gorakhpur, and that a son was born out of their relationship. He, however, claimed that she was never subjected to dowry demands, harassment, or assault by him or his family.

The Family Court had rejected the woman's plea by noting that she had only filed a photocopy of the notice before the Marriage Officer, Gorakhpur, and there was no document on record to ascertain that she was the legally wedded wife.

However, in the same order, it declared the minor son 'illegitimate' but awarded him ₹5,000 per month as maintenance.

Perusing the Family Court's order, Justice Sachdev took exception to the Family Court's approach, noting a "clear non-application of mind in a cursory manner and mechanical manner."

The High Court noted that the trial judge completely ignored the opposite party's explicit admissions that the parties had cohabited for a considerable period of time, that they intended to marry initially, and that a child was also born out of their relationship.

The High Court was of the view that when a relationship as husband and wife was otherwise established by continuous cohabitation, technicalities must not have been used to deny maintenance.

In view of this, the impugned order was set aside insofar as the rejection of the wife's maintenance claim was concerned.

The Allahabad High Court, however, upheld the direction to the father to pay ₹5,000 per month to the minor child as it noted that Section 125 CrPC makes it obligatory for a father to maintain both legitimate and illegitimate children.

The matter was remanded to the Family Court with a direction to both parties to file their financial disclosure affidavits in compliance with the Rajnesh guidelines and to dispose of the case expeditiously within three months.

Case Title - Sushila Versus Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 384