Legal Husband Cannot Deny Maintenance to Minor Child Borne by Wife Despite Allegations of Non-Access and Desertion

The Petitioner (husband) challenged an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi, which awarded maintenance to his wife (Respondent No. 1), three children (Respondents No. 2–4), and his mother (Respondent No. 5) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Petitioner alleged that the wife deserted him in 2010.

disputed the paternity of the fourth child (Respondent No. 4).

argued that his mother had sufficient means from property sales.

It was admitted that the Petitioner had entered a second marriage and had two children from that union.

The Trial Court had awarded ₹10,000 to the wife and ₹5,000 each to the other four respondents.

1. Whether Respondent No. 4 is the legitimate son of the Petitioner given the plea of non-access.

2. Whether the wife is disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. due to voluntary desertion.

3. Whether the Petitioner is liable to maintain his mother (Respondent No. 5) and children (Respondents No. 2–3) despite claims of their independent income.

4. Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court was proportionate to the Petitioner’s income.

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates maintenance for wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves, provided the husband has sufficient means and neglects them.

Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., which bars maintenance if a wife refuses to live with her husband "without sufficient reason".

Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 112 of the Evidence Act), which establishes a "conclusive proof" of legitimacy for children born during a valid marriage unless "no access" is proven.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's challenge to the paternity of Respondent No. 4, noting that the marriage was subsisting and the Petitioner failed to provide rebuttal evidence of "no access" during the period of conception.

Regarding desertion, the Court held that since the Petitioner admittedly married a second woman and resided with her, the wife had "sufficient reason" to live separately under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.

The Court found the Petitioner’s mother (Respondent No. 5) entitled to maintenance as she is over 70, suffers from ailments, and her meager earnings from a mess are spent on medical expenses.

Although the Petitioner claimed a low income of ₹5,000–₹6,000, the Court drew an adverse inference because he failed to produce his bank passbook and is successfully maintaining a second family.

However, the Court found the Trial Court's award "exorbitant" in the absence of documentary proof of the Petitioner's exact income.

The High Court partly allowed the revision petition and modified the maintenance amounts: maintenance for Respondents No. 1 (wife) and 5 (mother) was reduced to ₹5,000 per month each; maintenance for Respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 (children) was reduced to ₹2,500 per month each, payable from the date of the petition until they attain majority.