Ramkali Kushwaha vs Manoj Kushwaha

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48325
1 CRR-3797-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
th
ON THE 6 OF JULY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3797 of 2019
RAMKALI KUSHWAHA
Versus
MANOJ KUSHWAHA
Appearance:
Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari with Ms. Anjali Mehra, Advocates for the petitioner.
ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/wife
challenging the order dtd.25.06.2019 passed by Link Family Court, Umaria,
District Umariya in MJCR No. 44/2017, whereby the Family Court has
allowed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. partly and awarded an
amount of Rs.2,000/- to the minor daughter-Ku. Shivani Kushwaha, however
refused to award any maintenance to the petitioner/wife on the ground that
she is not legally wedded wife of the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although at the age
of ten years the petitioner was married to one Dayal Yadav, but the marriage
was never consummated and thereafter the petitioner was married to the
respondent-Manoj Kushwaha and out of their wedlock a daughter Kumari
Shivani Kushwaha was also born, who on the basis of ex parte evidence has
been found to be the daughter born out of wedlock of the petitioner and
respondent and the Court has also awarded an amount of Rs.2000/- to her.
He submits that in absence of any rebuttal evidence and further in the light of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
11:56:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48325
2 CRR-3797-2019
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Usha Rani and another

vs. Moodudula Sriniva, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 225 (para 12 and 15), the
petitioner also should have been treated to be the wife and ought to have
been awarded the monthly maintenance. He also also submits that in the light
of aforesaid decision in the case of N. Usha Rani (supra), the matter deserves
to be remanded to the Family Court for reconsideration in respect of the
petitioner/wife. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the criminal
revision.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/wife and perused the
record.
4. Apparently on the basis of unrebutted ex party evidence of the
petitioner/wife, the Court below has found that out of wedlock of the
petitioner and respondent, a daughter Ku. Shivani Kushwaha was born. It is
the evidence of the petitioner that the petitioner was married to the
respondent and resided with the respondent as a wife, although she was
married to one Dayal at the age of 10 years but the marriage was
never consummated .
5. Paragraphs 12 & 15 of N. Usha Rani case (supra) read as under:-
"12. This purposive interpretation was pressed into service by a 3-
Judge bench in Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K), (1991) 2 SCC 375
whereby maintenance was granted to the second wife as the
Respondent husband was unable to conclusively establish his first
marriage. The Court noted:
“3 . Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to
achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and
destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food,
clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. When an attempt is made
by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife
depicting her as a kept-mistress on the specious plea that he was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
11:56:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48325
3 CRR-3797-2019
already married, the court would insist on strict proof of the earlier
marriage. The term ‘wife’ in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, includes a woman who has been divorced by a husband
or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not
remarried. The woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus
brought within the inclusive definition of the term ‘wife’
consistent with the objective. However, under the law a second
wife whose marriage is void on account of the survival of the first
marriage is not a legally wedded wife and is, therefore, not entitled
to maintenance under this provision. Therefore, the law which
disentitles the second wife from receiving maintenance from her
husband under Section 125, CrPC, for the sole reason that the
marriage ceremony though performed in the customary form lacks
legal sanctity can be applied only when the husband satisfactorily
proves the subsistence of a legal and valid marriage particularly
when the provision in the Code is a measure of social justice
intended to protect women and children. We are unable to find that
the respondent herein has discharged the heavy burden by
tendering strict proof of the fact in issue. The High Court failed to
consider the standard of proof required and has proceeded on no
evidence whatsoever in determining the question against the
appellant. We are, therefore, unable to agree that the appellant is
not entitled to maintenance.”
............. ............................. .................

15. This divergence in judicial opinion has been noted by the
Court in Chanmuniya (supra) and therefore the question of
whether women in live-in relationships can claim maintenance
u/s. 125 CrPC was referred to a larger bench. The discussion, to
the extent relevant, is reproduced below:
“24. Thus, in those cases where a man, who lived with a woman
for a long time and even though they may not have undergone
legal necessities of a valid marriage, should be made liable to pay
the woman maintenance if he deserts her. The man should not be
allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes by enjoying the
advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking the duties
and obligations. Any other interpretation would lead the woman to
vagrancy and destitution, which the provision of maintenance in
Section 125 is meant to prevent.
25. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System,
headed by Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath, in its Report of 2003 opined
that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a
reasonably long period should be sufficient to draw the
presumption that the marriage was performed according to the

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
11:56:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48325
4 CRR-3797-2019
customary rites of the parties. Thus, it recommended that the word
“wife” in Section 125 CrPC should be amended to include a
woman who was living with the man like his wife for a reasonably
long period…
42. We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation
should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases
where a man and woman have been living together as husband and
wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of
marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under
Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the
beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also
believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of
the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution,
namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.”

6. In view of the aforesaid evidence and the findings recorded by the
Family Court as well as in light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of N. Usha Rani (supra), the matter deserves to be reconsidered.
7. Resultantly, this criminal revision deserves to be and is hereby
partly allowed and disposed of with the direction to the Family Court to
restore the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to its original number and
to decide afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties.
8. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on
03.08.2026.
9. It is made clear that if the parties do not appear before the Family
Court, it shall issue fresh notice/summons to secure their presence before the
Court.
10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
11:56:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48325
5 CRR-3797-2019
KPS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 07-07-2026
11:56:36