Strict proof of a valid marriage is not required for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The revisionist (Sushila) filed a maintenance application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. claiming she married the opposite party (Rajiv) via court marriage on 21.09.2017

She alleged harassment for dowry and subsequent expulsion from her matrimonial home, asserting she has no income while the husband is a lab technician

The husband denied a legal marriage, claiming they only applied for court marriage but did not formalize it; however, he admitted they cohabitated in his government quarters and a son was born from the relationship

The trial court (Family Court, Maharajganj) denied maintenance to Sushila, holding she was not a "legally wedded wife" due to lack of documentary proof, but granted ₹5,000 per month to the child, labeling him an "illegitimate child"

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying maintenance by insisting on strict proof of marriage despite evidence of prolonged cohabitation

2. Whether the trial court failed to follow the mandatory guidelines for filing affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities

The court applied Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates support for wives and children (legitimate or illegitimate)

It relied on Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014), which established that a "purposive and socially contextual approach" must be taken in maintenance cases, and strict proof of marriage should not be insisted upon if the parties lived together as husband and wife

Furthermore, it applied the mandatory procedural requirements from Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), which necessitates the filing of "Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities" by both parties to determine the quantum of maintenance

The High Court found the trial court’s decision-making "mechanical" and "cursory"

The court reasoned that while the formal marriage certificate was missing, the husband’s own admission of applying for court marriage, their cohabitation in his government accommodation, and the birth of a child created a presumption of a marriage-like relationship sufficient for Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The court noted that the trial court reached a contradictory conclusion by labeling the child "illegitimate" while ignoring the legal implications of the parents' relationship

Additionally, the trial court committed a serious procedural irregularity by failing to seek mandatory income affidavits as per the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines, rendering the determination of quantum baseless

The order granting maintenance to the minor child (₹5,000/month) was affirmed. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication on the wife's entitlement in light of the Badshah precedent. Both parties were directed to file detailed affidavits of income and assets in accordance with Rajnesh v. Neha, and the trial court was ordered to dispose of the matter within three months