Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC upheld for a woman in a qualifying live-in relationship.

The non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that she had married the applicant on 21 August 2014 at Mahamaya Temple, Ratanpur, and had lived with him until 19 June 2019. She claimed that the applicant, a Head Constable earning approximately ₹56,000 per month, had represented that he was divorced from his first wife, subsequently abandoned her, and was financially capable of maintaining her. She sought maintenance of ₹28,000 per month.

The applicant denied the marriage and live-in relationship, contending that both parties’ earlier marriages were subsisting, that the non-applicant was engaged in municipal cleaning work through a self-help group, and that he lacked the alleged independent assets and income.

The Family Court found that the parties had lived together in a live-in relationship, that the non-applicant had sufficient reason to live separately, that she was unable to maintain herself, and that the applicant had sufficient means to maintain her. It accordingly awarded her maintenance of ₹5,000 per month from the date of the order dated 21 July 2026.

The applicant challenged that order in revision before the High Court.

Whether the Family Court erred in holding that the non-applicant was entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on the basis of the parties’ alleged marital or live-in relationship, despite the applicant’s contention that their earlier marriages were subsisting.

Whether the Family Court’s finding that the non-applicant was unable to maintain herself and that the applicant had sufficient means to maintain her was legally sustainable.

Whether the award of maintenance of ₹5,000 per month warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction.

The Court applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which enables a wife or other statutorily covered dependent person unable to maintain herself to claim maintenance from a person having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain her.

The Court accepted the Family Court’s application of the principles concerning maintenance arising from a live-in relationship, including the requirements that the claimant be unable to maintain herself, that the respondent possess sufficient means, and that there be justification for separate residence.

In revision, interference is warranted only where the subordinate court’s order suffers from illegality, material irregularity, infirmity, or jurisdictional error; reassessment of the quantum is not justified merely because another view is possible.

The High Court found that the Family Court had considered the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and the order dated 24 March 2026 passed by the High Court in CRMP No. 2782 of 2025.

On that evidentiary assessment, the Family Court had reasonably concluded that the parties lived together in a live-in relationship, that the non-applicant had sufficient cause to reside separately, and that she was unable to maintain herself, while the applicant was a healthy and able-bodied person with sufficient means and capacity to provide maintenance.

The applicant’s challenges concerning the validity of the relationship, the non-applicant’s alleged independent income, and his own financial capacity did not establish any illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the Family Court’s findings.

The amount of ₹5,000 per month was also found neither excessive nor inadequate in the circumstances.

The maintenance of ₹5,000 per month, payable from the date of the Family Court’s order dated 21 July 2026, was upheld.

The criminal revision was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the Registry was directed to transmit a certified copy of the order to the concerned Family Court for necessary action.