A bench of Justice Achal Sachdev thus set aside the Family Court's order to the extent that it granted maintenance to the woman from her partner, the man she purportedly married without obtaining a divorce from her first husband.

The single judge, however, upheld the maintenance awarded to their minor daughter, noting that the father must maintain his children who are unable to maintain themselves, no matter whether legitimate or illegitimate, as provided u/s 125(1)(b) CrPC.

Case in brief

The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Santosh Kumar, challenging an August 2025 order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot, directing him to pay Rs 2,000 per month to the woman and Rs 1,000 per month to their daughter (till she attains majority).

The woman claimed that her second marriage was solemnised with the revisionist through a compromise notarised on June 10, 2006, with the opposite party, Santosh, in the presence of witnesses as per Hindu rituals.

She further claimed that they began living as husband and wife and they had a daughter together, who is approximately 8 years old.

According to her maintenance plea, the behaviour of the revisionist changed a few years after their daughter's birth, and he started beating her and her daughter and refused to provide food and maintenance despite earning Rs 18,000 to Rs 20,000 per month as a mason.

However, during her cross-examination, she admitted that she had been married to a man about 15 years earlier and had two children with him.

She also admitted that she was not married to the revisionist as per Hindu rites and rituals. However, her first husband died later while she was already residing with the revisionist.

High Court's observations

The High Court observed that the trial court itself had recorded a finding that the woman had been unable to prove that she was married to the revisionist as per Hindu rites and rituals, and it also observed that her husband was alive when she started residing with Santosh.

"From the perusal of evidence on record, it is clear that the applicant no. 1 does not qualify the term “legally wedded wife” of the opposite party, and the trial court has erred in passing the maintenance order in favour of applicant no. 1 (woman)", Justice Sachdev said.

While the Court found the woman's claim unjustified, it protected the minor daughter's right to claim maintenance from the revisionist.

The Court noted that a DNA report on record established that the revisionist and the woman are the biological parents of the child.

Therefore, upholding the daughter's maintenance, the Court partly allowed the criminal revision by only setting aside the maintenance in favour of the woman.