Criminal acquittal does not conclusively determine matrimonial status in Section 125 maintenance proceedings.

Respondent No. 2 claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Family Court, Uttarkashi, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 11 of 2023, accepted her claim and awarded ₹20,000 per month from 11 April 2023, the date of filing of the application.

The revisionist disputed the existence of a valid marriage, contending that the essential ceremonies under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, including Saptapadi where applicable, had not been proved and that the concerned priest had denied solemnizing the marriage.

He also challenged the quantum of maintenance, asserting that it was based only on oral evidence regarding his income and that no salary documents had been produced.

Earlier, the revisionist had instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that the alleged marriage was null and void; that suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26 September 2023 and was neither restored nor decided on merits.

Respondent No. 2 had also initiated criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in which the revisionist and his family members were acquitted.

The revision challenged the Family Court’s order dated 16 December 2025.

1. Whether respondent No. 2 established a marital relationship sufficient to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., despite the revisionist’s denial of a valid marriage and the alleged absence of proof of essential marriage ceremonies?

2. Whether the Family Court’s award of ₹20,000 per month was excessive or unsupported in the absence of documentary proof of the revisionist’s salary?

3. Whether the Family Court’s findings disclosed any patent illegality, perversity, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference in criminal revision?

Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a summary remedy intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy, and ordinarily requires the claimant to establish the requisite marital relationship.

The Court applied the principle that revisional jurisdiction is limited and does not permit interference merely because another view on the evidence is possible; interference is justified only where the findings suffer from patent illegality, perversity, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error.

The Court referred to Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, 1988 (1) SCC 530, concerning the entitlement of a woman claiming maintenance where the alleged marriage is void, but held that the decision did not assist the revisionist on the facts of this case.

It also relied on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, in the context of maintenance proceedings.

The Court further held that acquittal in a criminal prosecution does not conclusively determine matrimonial status in Section 125 proceedings because the standards and nature of appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial and a summary maintenance proceeding are distinct.

The Family Court had considered both oral and documentary evidence and recorded a finding in favour of respondent No. 2 regarding the relationship between the parties.

The High Court noted that the revisionist had himself instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that the marriage was null and void; since that suit was dismissed for want of prosecution and there was no subsequent order declaring the marriage void, the revisionist could not successfully rely on the alleged invalidity of the marriage in the revision.

The High Court found no basis to conclude that the Family Court’s finding was unsupported by evidence or that relevant material had been ignored.

As to quantum, the Family Court was entitled to assess the revisionist’s earning capacity and financial status from the material available, and the absence of a salary slip did not by itself invalidate the award where oral evidence regarding his income existed.

The revisionist’s acquittal in the related criminal case was not treated as determinative of the matrimonial relationship because that case involved a different standard and nature of adjudication.

Consequently, no revisional ground was made out.

It further held that the award of ₹20,000 per month, payable from 11 April 2023, was neither arbitrary nor excessive so as to warrant interference.

Finding no patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity, the Court dismissed the criminal revision and affirmed the Family Court’s judgment and order dated 16 December 2025.

No order as to costs was made.