Hafani Law Precludes Voiding Inter-Religious Marriages: Irregular Unions Entitle Wives and Children to Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC.

The petitioner, originally a Hindu woman, converted to Islam and married the Opposite Party No. 2 (OP2) according to Muslim rites on 12.08.2016

A child was born in 2017

The petitioner alleged desertion and torture, subsequently filing for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The OP2, a Sub-Inspector, denied the marriage and paternity

The Magistrate granted ad-interim maintenance of ₹5,000 for the petitioner and ₹4,000 for the child

On a revisional application, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside this order, doubting the marriage because the petitioner used her Hindu name in the cause title and because the marriage's validity was disputed

The Court applied Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which provides a summary remedy for maintenance regardless of personal law

It relied on Chand Patel vs. Bismilla Begum, establishing that under Hanafi Law, a marriage involving "unlawful conjunction" or religious differences (fasid) is merely irregular, not void (batil), and subsists until declared void by a competent court

It further cited Mohammed Salim vs. Shamsudeen, holding that children of such irregular marriages are legitimate

Finally, it applied Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Parava Dixit, which held that the standard of proof for marriage in Section 125 proceedings is not as strict as in criminal trials for bigamy; a prima facie showing of cohabitation as husband and wife suffices

The High Court found that the Revisional Court erred by focusing on technicalities, such as the petitioner’s use of her Hindu name, while ignoring prima facie evidence like the marriage certificate and the child's birth certificate containing the OP2’s name

The Court reasoned that even if the petitioner had not converted, a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman is "irregular" (fasid), meaning it remains valid for the purpose of maintenance until a civil court declares it void

The Court noted that the OP2 only filed a civil suit to challenge the marriage long after the maintenance proceedings began

Given the submission of a charge sheet under Section 498A IPC against the OP2, the Court held that the marital relationship was sufficiently established for a summary ad-interim stage

The Court held that the welfare of the child is paramount and that the OP2 is legally obligated to support the petitioner and the child pending the final disposal of the case

The OP2 was directed to pay the arrears and current maintenance as originally ordered by the Magistrate