NEW DELHI: The Allahabad high court, on July 10, ruled that a man is not liable to pay maintenance to a woman as his ‘wife’ if she began living with him without divorcing her first husband, while dismissing a woman’s maintenance claim against her partner.What was the dispute aboutAs per the court order, the case arose after a man named Santosh Kumar challenged an order passed by the family court in Chitrakoot on August 14, 2025. That order had directed him to pay Rs 2,000 a month to a woman and Rs 1,000 a month to her daughter, as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).According to the woman’s version before the trial court, her marriage to Santosh was solemnised through a compromise notarised on June 10, 2006, in the presence of witnesses, as per Hindu rituals. She said the couple lived happily as husband and wife for some years and had a daughter, who is now about 8 years old. She further alleged that Santosh later began quarrelling with her, beat her and the child, and even stopped providing them food, despite earning around Rs 18,000 to Rs 20,000 a month as a mason. She asked for Rs 3,000 a month for herself and Rs 4,000 a month for her daughter.Santosh’s counsel argued that the woman had earlier been married to a man named Sharda Prasad, had two children with him, and never divorced him.She started living with Santosh while Sharda was still alive, and it was only later, while she was staying with Santosh, that Sharda died. However, during her own cross-examination before the trial court, the woman admitted these facts herself — including that no Hindu marriage rites were actually performed between her and Santosh.What did the court sayJustice Achal Sachdev held that the woman’s own admission settled the matter. While examining the evidence, the court said that she does not count as the “legally wedded wife” of Santosh, and that the trial court had made a mistake in ordering him to pay her maintenance.“The trial court has also given finding to the effect that the applicant no. 1 was unable to prove that she was married to opposite party as per Hindu rites and rituals, and it also observed that her husband Sharda was alive when she started residing with Santosh,” the court said.The judgment also referred to Section 125(4) of the CrPC. This law says a wife cannot get maintenance if she is living in adultery, or if she refuses to live with her husband without a good reason, or if the couple has agreed to live apart. The ruling did not depend only on this rule, but the court mentioned it to explain who can and cannot be treated as a “wife” under Section 125.The court said that a DNA report on record, marked as “paper 54 Kha,” had already proven that Santosh and the woman were her biological parents. Because of this, the court said it is a father’s duty to support his children, whether or not they were born from a valid marriage. It said the trial court was right to order maintenance for the daughter, and there was no need to change that part of the order.“While deciding the issue no. (ii) as to whether applicant no. 2 is daughter of opposite party, the trial court has placed reliance on the DNA report, which is paper 54 Kha on the record, wherein it has been held that applicant no. 1 and opposite party are biological parents of applicant no. 2… it is the moral duty of father to maintain his children who are unable to maintain themselves, whether the children are legitimate or illegitimate, whether married or not, as provided u/s 125(1)(b) Cr. P.C.,” the court added.So, the court cancelled the maintenance ordered for the woman but let the daughter’s maintenance stay as it was. The court described its own decision as having “partly allowed” Santosh’s petition.
