A finally adjudicated marriage cannot be relitigated to defeat maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife were married at Delhi on 20 May 2002 according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was consummated, but no child was born from it. In August 2002, the respondent left the matrimonial home and returned to her parental home.

The petitioner subsequently instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that he was unmarried and an injunction restraining the respondent from claiming to be his wife. Although the suit was initially decreed in his favour, the respondent’s appeal was allowed on 22 July 2006, and the decree was set aside. The petitioner’s Regular Second Appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 4 April 2011.

In 2008, the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), seeking maintenance. By judgment dated 29 September 2018, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.7,000 per month from the date of filing until December 2011, Rs.10,000 per month from January 2012 to December 2013 and thereafter, along with Rs.11,000 towards litigation expenses.

The petitioner challenged the order under Sections 397 read with 401 CrPC, contending that the respondent was not his legally wedded wife, that she was capable of maintaining herself as a qualified advocate, and that his financial responsibilities towards his mother, present wife and child justified interference with the maintenance order.

Whether the petitioner could re-agitate the status of the respondent as his legally wedded wife in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC after the issue had been conclusively determined in the earlier civil proceedings?

Whether the respondent was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC as the petitioner’s wife?

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, ought to interfere with the Family Court’s findings or the quantum of maintenance?

Section 125 CrPC entitles a legally wedded wife unable to maintain herself to claim maintenance from her husband.

Sections 397 and 401 CrPC confer a limited revisional jurisdiction, which is not meant for re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of a plausible view taken by the subordinate court; interference is justified only in cases of material illegality, irregularity or perversity.

Relying on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, and Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu, (2011) 12 SCC 189, the Court reiterated the restricted scope of revision.

The Court further applied the principle that an issue finally adjudicated between the parties cannot be reopened in subsequent proceedings, particularly where the earlier judgment had attained finality upon dismissal of the second appeal.

The maintenance obligation of a husband towards his wife was reinforced by Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705, Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314.

The High Court held that the respondent’s status as the petitioner’s wife had already been determined in the earlier civil appeal dated 22 July 2006, and that determination stood affirmed when the petitioner’s second appeal was dismissed on 4 April 2011.

The petitioner was therefore bound by the final outcome and could not seek a de novo adjudication of the same issue in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.

The Family Court had also independently addressed the issue, and the petitioner had led no evidence sufficient to discharge his burden of proving that the respondent was not his wife.

Since the marriage was established, the respondent fell within the protective scope of Section 125 CrPC.

The petitioner’s assertions regarding his obligations towards his ailing mother, present wife and child did not extinguish his legal duty to maintain the respondent as his wife.

Further, the Family Court’s determination of maintenance was a plausible and reasoned view supported by the record. In the absence of perversity, illegality or material irregularity, the High Court declined to reassess the evidence or interfere with the quantum in revision.

The petitioner was precluded from reopening the issue of marriage after the earlier civil adjudication had attained finality.

Finding no material illegality, irregularity or perversity in the Family Court’s judgment, the Court dismissed the revision petition and all pending applications, leaving undisturbed the maintenance awarded at the rates of Rs.7,000 per month, Rs.10,000 per month and thereafter Rs.10,000 per month, together with Rs.11,000 towards litigation expenses.