The Allahabad High Court ruled that a woman cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from a live-in partner if her first marriage is still legally subsisting. Even long cohabitation cannot give the legal status of “wife” when no valid divorce exists.
Live-In Relationship Woman Can’t Claim Maintenance: The Allahabad High Court has clearly held that a woman is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code from a man with whom she lived for many years if her earlier marriage is still legally valid.
The Court made it clear that long cohabitation or a relationship resembling marriage does not automatically make a woman a “wife” in the eyes of law when her first marriage has not been legally dissolved.
The ruling was passed by Justice Madan Pal Singh while dismissing a criminal revision filed by a woman challenging the rejection of her maintenance application by the Family Court at Kanpur Nagar. The trial court had refused maintenance on the ground that she was not a legally wedded wife under Section 125 CrPC, and the High Court found no error in that decision.
As per the facts recorded by the Court, the revisionist woman was earlier married on 29 April 1992 according to Hindu rites and had two children from that marriage. Due to matrimonial disputes, the spouses started living separately. Although legal proceedings took place, the woman never obtained a final decree of divorce. Her divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act was later dismissed in default, meaning her first marriage continued to exist in law.
During this period, she came in contact with the opposite party, an advocate, who allegedly told her that marriages could be dissolved through a family settlement and notarised agreement. Believing this, and relying on a notarised settlement shown to her, she claimed that they married in June 2009 and lived together as husband and wife for nearly ten years. She also relied on the fact that her Aadhaar card and passport mentioned her as his wife and that she was socially recognised as such.
The woman further alleged that after almost a decade of living together, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment and was finally deserted in March 2018. Due to this, she approached the court seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, claiming that she had no independent means of survival.
The man, however, strongly opposed the claim. He argued that there was no valid marriage between them and that the woman was already legally married to another man. He also submitted that even his own earlier marriage was never dissolved. Therefore, according to him, no legal relationship of husband and wife ever came into existence between them. It was also argued that the woman was related to him as the daughter of his distant aunt, and her claim was not maintainable in law.
After examining the records, the High Court noted that both parties were already married to other persons at the time of their alleged marriage with each other. Referring to Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court observed that any marriage contracted during the lifetime of a living spouse is void from the very beginning and has no legal effect. Because of this, their relationship could not create a valid status of husband and wife under law.
The Court rejected the argument that reliance on a notarised deed or mutual settlement could grant legal marital status. It also refused to accept the plea that the woman was unaware that her first marriage was not legally dissolved.
The Court clearly stated:
“Her plea that she acted on the basis of mutual settlement and notarized deed cannot confer her legal status…Therefore, the plea of ignorance regarding the dissolution of first marriage cannot be accepted.”
The woman had relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) to argue that even a second wife is entitled to maintenance if she was deceived. However, the High Court distinguished that case, explaining that in the Supreme Court matter, the woman was legally eligible to marry and was unaware of the husband’s first marriage.
In contrast, in the present case, the woman herself admitted that her first marriage was still subsisting and no divorce decree existed.
The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat (2005), which clearly held that the word “wife” under Section 125 CrPC cannot be expanded to include a woman who is not legally married.
Summing up the legal position, the Court held:
“…although the revisionist resided with the opposite party for nearly ten years and the relationship may appear akin to marriage, yet such cohabitation does not confer the legal status of a wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In law, even assuming a marriage ceremony was performed, the same would be void as the applicant’s earlier marital tie continued to subsist”.
The Court further cautioned against allowing such claims, observing that permitting maintenance in such situations would seriously harm the legal and social framework of marriage.
The bench clearly stated:
“If such a practice is permitted in society, where a woman continues to remain legally married to one man, yet resides with another without obtaining dissolution of the first marriage, and thereafter seeks maintenance from the latter, the very object and sanctity of Section 125 CrPC would stand diluted and the institution of marriage would lose its legal and social integrity”.
Based on these findings, the Allahabad High Court upheld the Family Court’s order and dismissed the criminal revision. It concluded that the woman does not fall within the meaning of a “legally wedded wife” under Section 125 CrPC and is therefore not entitled to claim maintenance, regardless of the length of the relationship or social recognition.
Explanatory Table of Laws and Sections Mentioned
| Law / Statute | Section | Simple Explanation |
| Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 | Section 125 | Provides a quick legal remedy for maintenance to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. Only a “legally wedded wife” is entitled to claim maintenance. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 11 | Declares that a marriage is void from the beginning if it is performed while either party has a living spouse. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 13 | Deals with divorce and the grounds on which a marriage can be legally dissolved by a decree of the court. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 9 | Relates to restitution of conjugal rights, where one spouse seeks court intervention for the other to resume cohabitation. |
| Indian Penal Code | Sections 394, 342, 328, 323, 506 | Criminal provisions relating to robbery, wrongful confinement, causing hurt by poison, simple hurt, and criminal intimidation, referred to in connected criminal allegations. |
| Supreme Court Judgment | Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) | Held that maintenance can be granted to a second wife if she was deceived by the husband and was legally eligible to marry. Distinguished in this case. |
| Supreme Court Judgment | Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat (2005) | Clarified that the term “wife” under Section 125 CrPC cannot be extended to a woman who is not legally married. Relied upon by the High Court. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Madhu Alias Aruna Bhajpai vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 2099 of 2024
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Madan Pal Singh
- Date of Judgment: 8 December 2025
Counsels
- Counsel for the Revisionist
- Rajeev Sawhney
- Raju Kumar
- Counsel for the Opposite Parties
- Astitva Srivastava
- Government Advocate (G.A.)
- Pankaj Kumar Srivastava
- Sasmita Srivastava
Key Takeaways
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a legal right, not a sympathy tool, and it is available only to a legally wedded wife, not to partners in void or illegal relationships.
- Live-in relationships cannot be used to bypass marriage laws when a woman’s first marriage is still legally subsisting. Law protects legality, not emotional narratives.
- Notarised settlements, social recognition, or entries in Aadhaar and passport do not create a valid marriage or legal entitlement to maintenance.
- Supreme Court precedents protect genuinely deceived women, not those who knowingly continue relationships despite having an undissolved marriage.
- This judgment reinforces that misuse of maintenance laws weakens the institution of marriage and prevents men from being turned into financial liabilities through legally invalid claims.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
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.