Men’s Rights Milestone! The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court rules that a woman who accuses a man of rape cannot later demand maintenance; ending a growing trend of emotional and legal exploitation under Section 125 CrPC.
JAMMU & KASHMIR: In a ruling hailed as a major victory for men’s rights and legal fairness, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld that a woman who accused and secured a conviction of her partner for rape cannot subsequently seek maintenance from him under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The case, Murti Devi & Anr. v. Balkar Singh, exposed how laws designed to protect women are sometimes misused, and how courts must ensure that justice doesn’t become one-sided.
The case arose when Murti Devi, the petitioner, sought interim maintenance for herself and her child. She claimed to have been in a live-in relationship with the respondent for over a decade. She alleged that the respondent had promised to marry her and cohabited with her, resulting in the birth of a child. When the respondent allegedly refused to solemnize the marriage and sought termination of her pregnancy, she filed a complaint that led to the respondent’s conviction under Section 376 IPC.
The trial Magistrate initially granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month to the petitioner and Rs. 1,000 per month to the child, recognizing the emotional and financial hardships faced by a single mother. However, the respondent challenged this order, and the Revisional Court set aside the maintenance granted to the woman while retaining the child’s support.
Delivering judgment, Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul of the Jammu Bench dismissed Murti Devi’s plea, making it clear that a rape conviction destroys the presumption of a marital or marital-like bond. The Court observed:
“As the respondent was admittedly charged with an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC on the complaint of the petitioner, they cannot be treated as husband and wife for claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.”
Justice Koul emphasized that a relationship leading to a rape conviction cannot simultaneously be treated as a husband-wife relationship: “The conviction and sentence of the respondent make it difficult to hold him liable for the petitioner’s maintenance. Granting maintenance under Sections 488/125 CrPC in such circumstances is legally erroneous.”
“While the petitioner’s difficulties are acknowledged, the law must protect men from being forced into maintenance claims where criminal convictions exist.”
This judgment draws a bold line between genuine victimhood and opportunistic misuse. It sends a clear message that criminal accusations cannot coexist with spousal claims. A woman cannot first accuse a man of rape and then seek to enjoy the legal and financial benefits of being his wife.
Explanatory Table of All Laws and Sections in This Case
| Law / Section | Provision / Meaning | Relevance in the Case |
| Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance for wives, children, and parents. | Woman claimed maintenance under this section |
| Section 488 CrPC | Court’s power to grant interim relief | Trial Magistrate granted interim maintenance under this section |
| Section 376 IPC | Punishment for rape | Respondent convicted under this section; criminal conviction nullified spousal obligations |
| Child maintenance principle | Independent right of child | Child’s maintenance upheld regardless of parents’ legal disputes |
Case Title: Murti Devi & Anr. v. Balkar Singh
Counsels
- Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s): Through Mr. Surjeet Singh Andotra, Advocate
- For Respondents: Through Ms. Pariksha Parmar, Advocate
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul
Details
- Court: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Jammu Wing
- Case Number: CRM(M) No.1022/2022, CrlM No. 2132/2022
- Jurisdiction: Family Law (Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC), Criminal Law (conviction under Section 376 IPC)
- Date of Judgment: September 16, 2025
- Impugned Order Trial Court (District Judicial Mobile Magistrate, Kathua): Granted interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC: Rs.2000/- for petitioner no.1 (woman) and Rs.1000/- for petitioner no.2 (child).
- Revisional Court (Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua): Set aside interim maintenance for petitioner no.1 (woman) but maintained maintenance for the child.
- Statutory References:
- Sections 125CrPC
- 488 CrPC
- Section 376 IPC
- High Court Judgment:
- Maintenance to woman denied due to respondent’s conviction under Section 376 IPC
- Maintenance to child upheld
- Relationship cannot be legally treated as husband and wife for maintenance purposes
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.