Strict Proof of Marriage is Not Precondition for Maintenance Where Parties Lived Together as Husband and Wife

The petitioner (wife) challenged an order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the Link Family Court, Umaria, which partially allowed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Family Court awarded maintenance to the minor daughter but denied it to the petitioner on the grounds that she was not the "legally wedded wife" of the respondent.

The petitioner claimed that although she had a child-marriage at age ten with one Dayal Yadav, it was never consummated; she subsequently lived with the respondent as his wife, resulting in the birth of a daughter.

The respondent did not provide rebuttal evidence during the original ex parte proceedings.

1. Whether a woman in a long-term relationship, whose previous child marriage was never consummated, can be treated as a "wife" for the purposes of claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the Family Court erred in requiring strict proof of a legally valid marriage to grant maintenance under a beneficial social legislation.

The Court applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which serves a social purpose to prevent vagrancy and destitution.

It relied heavily on the Supreme Court precedent in N. Usha Rani v. Moodudula Sriniva (2025 SCC OnLine SC 225), which incorporates principles from Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) (1991) 2 SCC 375 and Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141.

These precedents establish that a "broad and expansive interpretation" must be given to the term "wife" to include women in de-facto marriages or long-term live-in relationships, and that strict proof of marriage is not a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125.

The High Court observed that the Family Court found the daughter was born out of the union between the petitioner and respondent based on unrebutted evidence.

Applying the N. Usha Rani doctrine, the Court reasoned that the husband should not be allowed to benefit from legal loopholes to avoid maintenance obligations when a de-facto marriage exists.

Since the petitioner lived with the respondent as a wife and the respondent failed to provide rebuttal evidence to prove a subsisting legal impediment or to disprove the relationship, the Court found that the strict standard of proof used by the Family Court was inconsistent with the purposive interpretation of Section 125.

The Court determined that the matter required a fresh adjudication to align with current Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding social justice for abandoned women.

The High Court allowed the criminal revision in part and set aside the Family Court's refusal to grant maintenance to the petitioner.

The matter was remanded to the Family Court, Umaria, with directions to restore MJCR No. 44/2017 and decide the claim of the petitioner/wife afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard. Parties were directed to appear before the Family Court on 03.08.2026.