Strict Proof of Marriage is Not Precondition for Maintenance Where Parties Cohabited for Long Period

The petitioner/wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., alleging she married the respondent in 2002 and was later deserted due to infertility.

The respondent denied the marriage, asserting she was not his wife.

The Family Court, Dindori, dismissed the application on 06.02.2019, finding that while there was documentary evidence of marriage between the parties, the petitioner was not the "legally married wife" because she was previously married to one Tirath Yadav.

The petitioner challenged this dismissal via criminal revision.

1. Whether a woman in a de facto marriage or a "second wife" is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. when the husband fails to strictly prove the subsistence of a prior valid marriage or when the parties lived together for a long duration.

2. Whether the Family Court erred in denying maintenance solely on the ground of the marriage being "not legal" despite documentary evidence of the relationship.

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which serves a social purpose to prevent vagrancy and destitution.

Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) (1991), which held that a husband must provide strict proof of an earlier marriage to deny maintenance to a second wife.

N. Usha Rani v. Moodudula Srinivas (2025), which established that a broad and expansive interpretation of the term "wife" includes women in long-term live-in relationships or marriages lacking strict legal sanctity to fulfill the spirit of social justice.

The High Court observed that the Family Court did not record a finding that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent never occurred; rather, it admitted there was documentary evidence of the union but disqualified her for lack of "legal" status due to a prior marriage.

The High Court reasoned that under the principles laid down in N. Usha Rani, strict proof of a valid marriage is not a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

It held that where a man and woman live together for a reasonably long period, the man should not benefit from legal loopholes to avoid his obligation to prevent the woman from falling into destitution.

Consequently, the matter required re-examination to apply this beneficial and expansive interpretation of the term "wife".

It partly allowed the criminal revision, set aside the Family Court’s order, and remanded the matter back to the Family Court, Dindori, for a fresh decision in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in N. Usha Rani.

The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court on 03.08.2026.