PRAYAGRAJ: <\/em>The Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/strong>, through Justice Achal Sachdev<\/strong>, held that a woman cannot claim maintenance<\/strong> <\/a>as a legally wedded wife from another man when she had not divorced her first husband and the first husband was alive when the relationship began.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court was hearing a criminal revision<\/strong> against an order dated August 14, 2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court had directed the man to pay \u20b92,000 per month to the woman and \u20b91,000 per month to the minor daughter from the date of filing of the maintenance application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The woman claimed that she had married the man in 2006 through a notarised compromise<\/strong> and Hindu customs. She said that they lived together as husband and wife<\/strong> and had a daughter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She alleged that the man later stopped supporting her and the child. She also claimed that he earned around \u20b918,000 to \u20b920,000 per month and was capable of paying maintenance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The man challenged the order and argued that the woman was already married to another person when she started living with him<\/strong>. He said that she had never obtained a divorce from her first husband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During her cross-examination, the woman admitted that she had earlier married another man and had two children from that marriage. She also admitted that she had not taken divorce from her first husband.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The record showed that her first husband was alive when she started living with the revisionist. Her first husband died only later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court noted that the woman could not prove that a valid Hindu marriage had taken place between her and the revisionist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court clearly observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFrom the perusal of evidence on record, it is clear that the applicant no. 1 does not qualify the term \u2018legally wedded wife\u2019 of opposite party, and the trial court has erred in passing the maintenance order in favor of applicant no. 1.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court therefore held that the woman was not the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and was not entitled to maintenance from him under Section 125 CrPC<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the Court took a different view regarding the minor daughter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A DNA report<\/strong> placed before the Family Court proved that the revisionist and the woman were the biological parents of the child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court said that a father has a legal and moral duty to maintain his child who is unable to support herself. This duty applies whether the child is legitimate or illegitimate<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court therefore continued the maintenance of \u20b91,000 per month<\/strong> granted to the minor daughter until she attained majority<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, it cancelled the maintenance of \u20b92,000 per month awarded to the woman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The criminal revision was partly allowed. The woman\u2019s maintenance was set aside, while the daughter\u2019s maintenance was upheld.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How It Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Allows maintenance to a wife, child or parent unable to maintain themselves.<\/td> The woman and daughter claimed monthly maintenance under this section.<\/td><\/tr> Section 125(1)(b) CrPC<\/strong><\/td> A father must maintain his minor child, whether legitimate or illegitimate.<\/td> The daughter\u2019s maintenance was upheld after DNA proved paternity.<\/td><\/tr> Section 125(4) CrPC<\/strong><\/td> A wife may lose maintenance in certain situations, including adultery or unjustified separation.<\/td> The Court examined this provision while deciding the woman\u2019s claim.<\/td><\/tr> Criminal Revision<\/strong><\/td> Allows the High Court to correct legal errors in a lower court order.<\/td> The Family Court\u2019s maintenance order was challenged.<\/td><\/tr> DNA Evidence<\/strong><\/td> Scientific proof used to establish biological parentage.<\/td> It proved that the revisionist was the child\u2019s biological father.<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage<\/a> Requirements<\/strong><\/td> A valid marriage generally requires that no earlier spouse is living.<\/td> The woman\u2019s first husband was alive and no divorce had taken place.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n