A Section 125 maintenance claim fails when marriage or paternity is not proved.

Laxmi and her two children sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., alleging that Laxmi married Naveen Kumar on 15 November 2019 and that he neglected to maintain them.

The Family Court, proceeding ex parte against Naveen, relied on Laxmi’s testimony, Aadhaar cards and an FIR, and awarded her ₹3,000 per month, each child ₹1,500 per month, and ₹10,000 in litigation expenses.

Naveen challenged the order, disputing the marriage and paternity and arguing, among other things, that the documents did not establish either.

In this revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, the High Court considered whether the maintenance order could stand on the evidence adduced.

1. Whether the Family Court’s maintenance order could be sustained when the claimant had not sufficiently established her marriage to Naveen or the children’s paternity.

2. Whether the evidence relied on by the Family Court was sufficient to establish the respondents’ entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Court applied Section 125 Cr.P.C., stating that a claimant must establish the relevant relationship—valid marriage in the case of a wife, or paternity in the case of a child—as well as neglect or refusal to maintain and lack of sufficient means of support.

The Court also assessed whether the documents and testimony on which the Family Court relied proved those foundational facts.

The High Court found that Laxmi had produced no wedding card, photographs or other documentary evidence of the marriage; the Aadhaar cards did not establish the claimed marital relationship or paternity.

It also noted inconsistencies between her assertion in the FIR that she had worked as a staff nurse for 20 years and her verification affidavit stating that she had no education, income or assets, and observed that the alleged income of Naveen was unsupported by documentary evidence.

Although the Family Court had relied on her testimony and the FIR, the High Court held that the respondents had not proved the foundational relationship required for the claim.