Site icon Legal News

Marriage Invalid Due To Husband Concealing Religious Identity, But Wife Still Gets ₹10,000 Monthly Maintenance: MP High Court

Maintenance Wife Gets ₹10,000 Despite Invalid Marriage

Maintenance Wife Gets ₹10,000 Despite Invalid Marriage

Can wife get maintenance even if marriage is treated as invalid? MP High Court says Yes, holding that if marriage rituals were performed and a child was born, the woman’s maintenance claim cannot be rejected merely because the marriage validity is questioned.

MADHYA PRADESH: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, through Justice Gajendra Singh, allowed a criminal revision filed by a woman and her child against a Family Court order which had denied maintenance to the woman and granted ₹2,000 per month to the child.

The woman had approached the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC. She claimed that marriage rituals were performed with her in February 2020, but the man had allegedly concealed his religious identity and represented himself differently before the marriage.

She further stated that she became pregnant and later discovered his actual identity through his Aadhaar card. According to her case, after she objected, she was threatened, subjected to cruelty, pressured to adopt another religion, and physically assaulted when she refused.

The woman gave birth to a child in March 2021. She also alleged that after she went to her parental home, the man entered that house, and an FIR was later registered in Indore under provisions including Sections 452, 498-A, 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, along with provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Dharmik Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2021.

The woman and the child claimed that they were unable to maintain themselves. They stated that the man was earning from gym training, personal training, sale of protein powder and oil, and property brokerage. On this basis, they sought ₹30,000 per month each as maintenance.

The Family Court rejected the woman’s claim by holding that she was not the legally wedded wife. However, it accepted that the child was born from the relationship and granted only ₹2,000 per month to the child.

The man remained absent before the High Court despite service of notice. After examining the record, the High Court held that the Family Court had taken an incorrect approach by denying maintenance to the woman only on the ground that the relationship was not treated as a legally valid marriage.

The High Court said:

“Such an approach results in further victimization of petitioner No.1 who had already suffered at the hands of the respondent, and thereafter was denied maintenance by the Trial Court.”

The Court considered the question of maintenance amount and said that the cost of living in Indore had to be kept in mind while fixing the amount.

The High Court then set aside the Family Court’s finding against the woman. It awarded ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to the woman from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 08 January 2022.

The Court also enhanced the child’s maintenance from ₹2,000 per month to ₹10,000 per month from the same date. The revision petition was allowed and the Family Court order was modified.

EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND SECTIONS INVOLVED

Law / SectionPurposeHow It Applied In This Case
Section 19(4), Family Courts Act, 1984Allows a criminal revision against certain Family Court orders.The woman and child used this provision to challenge the Family Court order before the High Court.
Section 125, CrPCProvides maintenance to wife, children or parents who cannot maintain themselves.The woman and child filed the maintenance case under this section.
Section 452, IPCHouse-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.Mentioned as one of the offences in the FIR registered against the man.
Section 498-A, IPCCruelty by husband or his relatives against a woman.The woman alleged cruelty, and this section was part of the FIR.
Section 323, IPCPunishment for voluntarily causing hurt.Mentioned in the FIR regarding alleged physical assault.
Section 294, IPCObscene acts or words in public place.Mentioned as one of the FIR sections.
Section 506, IPCCriminal intimidation or threat.The woman alleged threats, and this section was invoked.
Section 34, IPCCommon intention when several persons act together.Used along with other IPC sections in the FIR.
Section 425, IPCMischief, meaning causing wrongful loss or damage to property.Mentioned in the order as part of the FIR allegations.
Section 5 read with Section 3, Madhya Pradesh Dharmik Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2021Relates to unlawful religious conversion and related prohibited conduct under the State law.The woman alleged concealment of religious identity and pressure to adopt another religion. These provisions were mentioned in the FIR.

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS


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.

Exit mobile version