Claimant Ineligible for Section 125 Maintenance Absent Proof of Marriage or Pleading of Live-in Relationship

The revisionist, Manju Sonkar, filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from opposite party no. 2 (Om Prakash).

The Trial Court (Family Court, Kaushambi) allowed maintenance for the biological minor child but rejected the revisionist’s claim on the grounds that she was not a legally wedded wife.

The Trial Court found that opposite party no. 2 had a subsisting marriage with another woman and that the revisionist failed to provide credible evidence of their own marriage rituals.

The revisionist challenged this order, claiming she had no knowledge of the previous marriage and that a long-term relationship should entitle her to maintenance.

1. Whether the revisionist is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in the absence of a legally valid marriage due to the subsistence of the husband’s prior marriage?

2. Whether a presumption of marriage can be raised for the purpose of maintenance when the factum of marriage and live-in relationship is specifically denied and unsupported by evidence?

The court primarily applied Section 125 of the CrPC, which provides for maintenance to a "wife".

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, noting that a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage is not permitted.

The court distinguished Anupama Pradhan v. Sultan Pradhan, which applied to communities where bigamy was permissible under customs.

The principles in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, which suggested that women in long-term relationships akin to marriage might be entitled to maintenance, but noted that such a presumption requires evidence of cohabitation or admitted relationship.

The Court observed that the revisionist failed to establish the solemnization of marriage through credible evidence.

It rejected the application of Anupama Pradhan because the parties in this case do not belong to a Scheduled Tribe community exempt from the monogamy requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The court distinguished Chanmuniya on the basis that in the present case, the opposite party categorically denied any relationship, and the revisionist failed to plead or prove a "live-in relationship" or a "relationship akin to marriage".

The Court reasoned that without specific pleadings or proof of long-term cohabitation, a claimant cannot benefit from the presumption of marriage when the existence of the relationship itself is in dispute.

The Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Trial Court’s order and dismissed the Criminal Revision.