S.125 CrPC | Woman Can't Claim Maintenance As Live-In Partner Without Pleading Or Proving Such Relationship: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a woman seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot invoke the protection extended to live-in partners where she has neither pleaded such a relationship nor established that a marriage took place. It held that this is all the more so where the man has categorically denied having any relationship with her.Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a woman seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot invoke the protection extended to live-in partners where she has neither pleaded such a relationship nor established that a marriage took place. It held that this is all the more so where the man has categorically denied having any relationship with her.
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla held,
“Where there is neither any specific pleading regarding the existence of a live-in relationship nor any evidence establishing the solemnization of marriage between the parties, the claimant seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot claim the benefit available to persons in a live-in relationship, particularly when the existence of such relationship has been categorically denied by the opposite party.”
Revisionist Manju Sonkar approached the High Court against an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi, by which maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was granted to her minor son but her own claim was turned down on the finding that she was not the legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2. It was recorded that opposite party was in marriage with another woman, a second marriage not being permitted under Hindu Law while an earlier one subsists.
The order was challenged before the High Court on grounds of being arbitrary, illegal and passed without application of judicial mind. It was submitted for the revisionist that she was the legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2 and that she had not known of his earlier marriage, which by itself could not disentitle her to maintenance. Revisionist relied on Supreme Court's decision in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another.
The Court noted the Supreme Court's observation that a woman who has lived with a man for a considerable period may be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the relationship being treated as akin to that of a legally wedded wife. It held the decision distinguishable on facts.
“However, it is pertinent to note that, in the said case, the factum of marriage between the parties was not in dispute. In the present case, on the contrary, the very existence of the marital relationship has been specifically denied and the revisionist has failed to establish the solemnization of marriage between the parties.”
The Court observed that opposite party no. 2 had denied having any relationship with the revisionist, and there was neither any pleading nor any material on record indicating that the parties had lived together in a live-in relationship. The ratio in Chanmuniya, it held, had no application to the controversy before it.
Finding that the Family Court had passed a reasoned and speaking order on the entire material before it, the Court dismissed the criminal revision.
Case Title: Manju Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 495
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 495