Unsupported allegations of voluntary desertion or a live-in relationship do not defeat a maintenance award.

Facts

The respondent sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Family Court, Mandi, allowed her petition and awarded maintenance of ₹5,000 per month from the date of filing.

Source reference: p. 1, para. 1

The petitioner challenged that order, arguing that the respondent remained married to her first husband, had voluntarily left the petitioner, and was in a live-in relationship with another man.

Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 2, 10

The respondent relied, among other things, on the parties’ 21-year relationship and a Pariwar Register entry recording her as the petitioner’s wife; she also alleged that the petitioner had assaulted and forced her to leave.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 3, 7

The High Court considered the petitioner’s revision against the Family Court’s order.

Source reference: p. 4, para. 4

Issues

1. Whether the respondent’s failure to obtain a formal divorce from her first husband barred her from receiving maintenance from the petitioner.

Source reference: pp. 2, 5–6, paras. 2, 6–9

2. Whether the respondent had voluntarily left the petitioner and was in a live-in relationship with Ashok Kumar, such that the maintenance order should be set aside.

Source reference: pp. 2, 6–8, paras. 2, 10–16

3. Whether the petitioner’s stated willingness to take the respondent back warranted interference with the maintenance order.

Source reference: p. 8, para. 17

Law Applied

The Court considered Section 125 CrPC, under which maintenance may be awarded to a qualifying wife unable to maintain herself.

Source reference: no citation

In assessing the respondent’s claim despite the absence of a formal divorce from her first husband, the Court noted that the Family Court had relied on Supreme Court judgments; however, the judgment does not identify those authorities by name.

Source reference: p. 5, para. 6

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that a party asserting voluntary desertion or a live-in relationship must substantiate that allegation with evidence; a bare assertion is insufficient.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 11, 13–14

Reasoning

The High Court found no basis to disturb the Family Court’s conclusion on the first-marriage issue: that court had addressed it by reference to Supreme Court judgments, and the petitioner did not establish that its findings were perverse.

Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 6, 9

The Pariwar Register recorded the respondent as the petitioner’s wife, and the petitioner had not disputed that entry or her status as his wife in cross-examination.

Source reference: p. 5, paras. 7–8

On desertion and the alleged live-in relationship, the petitioner produced no cogent evidence that the respondent had left voluntarily or was Ashok Kumar’s partner; the agreement he produced described her as a servant.

Source reference: pp. 6–8, paras. 11–16

Given the evidence of assault and the parties’ long relationship, the Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that she had voluntarily deserted him.

Source reference: pp. 6, 8, paras. 12, 18

It treated the petitioner’s offer to take her back as an attempt to avoid maintenance rather than a ground for interference.

Source reference: p. 8, para. 17

Holding

The High Court answered the issues against the petitioner and dismissed the revision, finding no infirmity in the Family Court’s order awarding the respondent ₹5,000 per month from the date of her maintenance petition.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

Source reference: pp. 8–9, para. 19