Woman Made To Believe Man Had Divorced First Wife Entitled To Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently held that a woman, who was not aware of the husband's earlier marriage and was made to believe that the first wife had been divorced, would be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS). The court thus ordered maintenance to be paid to a woman, who was argued to be the husband's second wife. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 482] "Though the...
The Madras High Court recently held that a woman, who was not aware of the husband's earlier marriage and was made to believe that the first wife had been divorced, would be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS).
The court thus ordered maintenance to be paid to a woman, who was argued to be the husband's second wife. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 482]
"Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that a second wife, whose marriage is void on account of the existence of an earlier legal marriage, is not entitled to maintenance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as could be seen from the aforesaid observation, had also held that the burden is on the husband to establish that the earlier marriage was in subsistence This burden has not ben discharged by the petitioner. Hence, this Court finds that the finding of the Family Court that the petitioner had deceived the 1st respondent to believe that he was a divorcee is based on evidence and cannot be said to be perverse, warranting interference in a revision," the court observed.
Justice Sunder Mohan observed that the term “wife” has a wider connotation with respect to the grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The court added that the parties are presumed to be married if the man and the woman were in a relationship for a very long time.
“As regards the second submission that the 1st respondent is not a legally wedded wife, it is the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court that the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice intended to protect women and children and that 'wife' as understood in Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has a wide connotation and the marriage is to be presumed if a man and a woman are in a relationship for a long period time,” the court said.
The court further observed that strict proof of marriage was not essential to maintain a claim under Section 125 CrPC and if the parties had been in a relationship for a long time, the marriage was presumed.
“Therefore, this Court is of the view that the standard of proof to establish the marriage in a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be the same as that is required to prove the offence of bigamy. Therefore, in a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. strict proof of marriage is not essential and if it is shown that the relationship was continuous and for a sufficiently long time, the marriage can be presumed,” the court said.
The court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the husband challenging the order passed by the Family Court ordering maintenance to be paid to the wife under Section 144 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 125 CrPC).
The wife had claimed that she got acquainted with the husband while she was working as a model. The husband had introduced himself as a film producer. The wife claimed that the husband had approached her stating that he had a miserable married life and he had already divorced his wife. The wife submitted that the husband had even shown a divorce copy and had convinced her mother to agree to the marriage.
The parties later got married in 2020 and lived at the wife's place. A son was born to them. The wife also submitted that though the husband's family used to come and visit her and the child, the husband stopped coming to visit them. She had thus filed the maintenance plea, as she was not able to maintain herself and the child with the meagre income and could not pursue her avocation after childbirth.
The husband denied all the allegations and the fact of marriage. He argued that his relationship with the wife was illegal in the eyes of law. He also argued that the wife had taken advantage of a weak moment and got conceived to make unlawful gain from him. He also argued that he had stopped the relationship after getting to know of the wife's character. Further, the husband claimed that since there was no marriage between the parties, the wife was not entitled to maintenance.
The family court observed that the parties had long cohabitation and the absence of proof of valid marriage could not be a ground for denial of maintenance. The family court observed that the husband had forced the wife into a relationship by suppressing the fact that there was a valid marriage and he could not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. The court had thus ordered 1 lakh maintenance to the wife and 1.5 lakh maintenance to the child.
In appeal, the husband argued that even if it was assumed that the wife had established a valid marriage, she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The husband argued that the wife had purchased property worth 1.7 crore and owned two luxury cars. It was argued that the wife had not satisfied the conditions required to invoke Section 125 CrPC and thus she could not be said to be destitute to claim maintenance.
The wife, on the other hand, claimed that the husband was earning Rs 10 lakh per month and thus the quantum of maintenance was reasonable.
The court noted that the husband had not discharged the burden to prove that the wife was aware of his earlier marriage. The court also held that since the parties were in a relationship for a long time, the marriage was presumed.
With respect to the quantum of maintenance, the court noted that after childbirth, the wife did not have a regular source of income and thus, the maintenance of Rs 1 lakh per month was reasonable.
The court was thus not inclined to interfere with the order of maintenance by the Family Court and thus dismissed the plea.
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. B. Kumar, Sr. Counsel for Mr. T. Sudhan Raj
Counsel for Respondents: Ms. B. Poongkhulali
Case Title: G v A
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
Case No: CRL RC No. 1116 of 2026