Brajesh Rai vs Smt. Mamta Rai

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:85233

CRR-2820-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T J AB AL P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
rd
ON THE 23 OF OCTOBER, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2820 of 2023
CNR No.: MPHC010366102023
BRAJESH RAI
Versus
SMT. MAMTA RAI

Appearance:
Shri Ajeet Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER

This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/husband
challenging the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jabalpur in MJCR No.810/2019, whereby the Family Court has allowed an
application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/-
to the respondent/wife towards monthly maintenance.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner/husband was
already married to one Aarti and out of their wedlock three children were also
born. With this background, he submits that the respondent is not legally wedded

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:15:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:85233

wife of the petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to any maintenance. He submits that
although out of wedlock of the petitioner and respondent also, two children namely
Vaibhav & Ayushman were born, but they being illegitimate children are also not
entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner. In support of his
submissions, he placed reliance on two decisions of coordinate Benches of this
Court in the case of Bhagwandas vs. Panpati Shah decided on 12.05.2023 in Cr.R.
No.1440 of 2022 (at Jabalpur) and Rajkumar Agrawal vs. Sarika and Another
decided on 23.09.2023 in Cr.R. No.382 of 2020 (at Indore).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband also submits that since the
respondent is not a legally wedded wife of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned
order awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to her, is not sustainable. On inter alia
submissions, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and for allowing the
instant criminal revision.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. It has come on record that prior to marriage of the petitioner with the
respondent, the petitioner was already married to one lady namely Aarti and it is
also not in dispute that out of wedlock of the petitioner and respondent, two
children namely, Vaibhav and Ayushman were born. It has been observed by the
Family Court that it is the petitioner/husband who did not bring the factum of his
first marriage, into the knowledge of respondent/wife.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:15:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:85233

6. While considering said aspect of the matter, the Family Court has by the
impugned order observed, that the petitioner knowingly performed second
marriage with the respondent and they lived together and out of their wedlock two
children were born and allowed the application by awarding the maintenance to the
respondent.
7. In an identical situation, recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the
case of Smt. N. Usha Rani and another vs. Moodudula Srinivas, 2025 SCC Online
SC 225, observed 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
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

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:15:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:85233

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
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

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:15:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:85233

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.
..….. ……………. …. …………….. ………
17. This encapsulates the full scope and gravity of considerations before
this Court as we deliberate on the issue at hand. The present case does
not concern a live-in relationship. The Family Court made a factual
finding that Appellant No.1 married the Respondent and that finding is
not disputed by the Respondent. Instead, the Respondent seeks to defeat
the right to maintenance by claiming that his marriage to Appellant No.1
is void ab initio as her first marriage is still subsisting. Two other
pertinent facts must be considered: firstly, it is not the case of the
Respondent that the truth was concealed from him. In fact, the Family
Court makes a specific finding that Respondent was fully aware of the
first marriage of the Appellant No.1. Therefore, Respondent knowingly
entered into a marriage with Appellant No.1 not once, but twice.
Secondly, Appellant No. 1 places before this Court an MoU of
separation with her first husband. While this is not a legal decree of
divorce, it also emerges from this document and other evidence that the
parties have dissolved their ties, they have been living separately and
Appellant No.1 is not deriving maintenance from her first husband.
Therefore, barring the absence of a legal decree, Appellant No.1 is de
facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and
entitlements as a consequence of that marriage."

8. A perusal of the decisions given by two coordinate benches of this Court
in the case of Bhagwandas ( supra ) and Rajkumar Agrawal ( supra ), shows that
these two decisions are based on previous decisions given by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, which have already been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Smt. N. Usha Rani ( supra ), therefore, these two decisions do not provide
any help to the case of the petitioner.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:15:16

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:85233

9. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario and in view of the aforesaid
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. N. Usha Rani ( supra ) =
2025 INSC 129, the Family Court does not appear to have committed any illegality
in passing the impugned order and in awarding monthly maintenance to the
respondent/wife.
10. Resultantly, instant criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed .
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:15:16