Strict Proof of Marriage Not a Precondition for Maintenance – Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court delivered a significant judgment expanding the protective scope of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra set aside a Family Court order that had rejected Madhu Yadav’s plea for maintenance on the ground that her marriage with Gaurav Yadav—her deceased husband’s younger brother—was not strictly proved. Holding that the law must adopt a “broad and expansive interpretation” of the term “wife” to fulfil the provision’s social justice objective, the court restored her case, directed a fresh hearing, and ordered interim monthly maintenance of ₹8,000.

Madhu Yadav was first married to Sriniwas, elder brother of Gaurav Yadav. The couple had two children, Shiwangi and Shreyansh. Sriniwas died on 20 July 2017 from Japanese Encephalitis.

According to Madhu, with the consent of both families, she married Gaurav Yadav on 15 June 2020. She alleged that after the second marriage, she lived with him and her children at Azamgarh, performing all matrimonial duties. Her father gave cash and valuables in the marriage, but Gaurav and his family allegedly demanded a Bullet motorcycle and subjected her to cruelty for dowry.

Madhu claimed that Gaurav threatened to remarry and eventually did so with a woman named Sangeeta Yadav, with the consent of his family. On 22 November 2021, she was allegedly beaten and expelled from her matrimonial home with her children. Subsequent attempts at reconciliation failed.

Gaurav, a constable in the U.P. Police earning about ₹70,000 per month, denied ever marrying Madhu, claiming she continued to live in her deceased husband’s property and that her children were not his biological offspring. He admitted taking responsibility for her and the children only “on humanitarian grounds” after a family settlement. He insisted he had married only once—to Sangeeta Yadav—in 2017.

In May 2022, Madhu filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking ₹30,000 per month for herself and ₹15,000 per month for each child. The Family Court framed the key issue: whether Madhu was the legally wedded wife of Gaurav and entitled to maintenance.

After considering evidence, the court held that while Madhu’s marriage to Sriniwas was undisputed, her alleged marriage to Gaurav was “not duly proved” due to lack of witnesses or convincing documents. It found her children were biologically Sriniwas’s and concluded she was not Gaurav’s wife in law, dismissing the petition on 18 October 2023.

Justice Mishra examined not only the evidence adduced in court but also the findings of a departmental inquiry against Gaurav, initiated on Madhu’s complaint to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Azamgarh. The inquiry, conducted by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Azamgarh, revealed:

• Gaurav admitted to marrying Madhu on 15 June 2020 with the consent of his wife Sangeeta and both families.

• Sangeeta corroborated that a second marriage with Madhu took place.

• The inquiry concluded Gaurav, a government servant, was guilty of bigamy, and the Superintendent of Police communicated this finding to the DIG.

The court noted that Gaurav’s own statements in the inquiry “prima facie proved” the marriage with Madhu, and criticised the Family Court for adopting a “hyper technical approach” in rejecting her claim.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011), the judge emphasised:

“Strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance… The man should not be allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking the duties and obligations.”

The court also referred to Smt. N. Usha Rani v. Moodudula Srinivas (2025), where the Apex Court reiterated that cohabitation over a long period raises a presumption of marriage, and maintenance law must be interpreted to prevent destitution and vagrancy.

“Higher Claim” Than Rival Wife

A striking observation of the High Court was that even if Madhu were treated as a second wife, her claim would stand “on a higher footing” than Sangeeta’s. The reason: Madhu’s first husband had died, meaning there was no legal impediment to her marriage with Gaurav, whereas Sangeeta’s earlier marriage to another man, Ranjeet, had not been legally dissolved.

Holding the Family Court’s judgment legally and factually erroneous, Justice Mishra ruled:

“A very broad and expansive interpretation is required to be given to the term ‘wife’… strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance in such cases.”

The court:

• Set aside the Family Court’s 18 October 2023 order.

• Remitted the matter for fresh decision treating Madhu as Gaurav’s wife.

• Directed interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month to Madhu from the date of the High Court order until final disposal of the case.

This judgment strengthens the position of women in relationships where formal proof of marriage is absent but cohabitation and social recognition exist. It reinforces that Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial, social justice provision aimed at preventing destitution, and courts should avoid narrow, technical interpretations that allow men to evade responsibilities through legal loopholes.

Date of Decision: 6 August 2025