Pooja vs Gabbar @ Mustafa - 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36746

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Gajendra Singh, J
Pooja – Appellant
Versus
Gabbar @ Mustafa – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4518 of 2023

Important Points

A woman is entitled to maintenance even if the marriage is not strictly legally valid, provided rituals were performed under concealment of identity and a child was born, to prevent further victimization.

Subject

Family Law - Maintenance

Act Referred

Family Courts Act, 1984: S.19(4)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.125
Indian Penal Code: S.452, S.498-A, S.323, S.294, S.506, S.34, S.425
Madhya Pradesh Dharmik Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2021: S.5, S.3

Headnote

The case involves a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner alleged that the respondent married her by concealing his religious identity, representing himself as a Hindu, and subsequently subjected her to cruelty and pressure to convert. A child was born from the relationship. The Trial Court had dismissed the maintenance claim of the first petitioner on the grounds that the marriage was not legally valid, while granting a nominal amount to the second petitioner. The court found that the first petitioner's claim was unjustly rejected given the circumstances of the relationship and the resulting child. The primary issue was whether the first petitioner was entitled to maintenance despite the Trial Court's finding that she was not a legally wedded wife. The court reasoned that when marriage rituals were performed by concealing religious identity and a child was born, denying maintenance based on the strict legality of the marriage results in further victimization of the woman. With the aforesaid, this revision petition is allowed and stands disposed off.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajesh Joshi

Table of Content
1. procedural history and facts regarding maintenance application and trial court's initial rejection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. right to maintenance despite lack of strict legal validity of marriage in cases of identity concealment. (Para 9)
3. assessment of maintenance quantum based on cost of living and respondent's liabilities. (Para 10)
4. final disposal of the revision petition in favor of petitioners. (Para 11)

ORDER

(Heard on: 07.05.2026)
(Delivered on: 22.06.2026)

This Criminal Revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred against the order dated 26.08.2023 passed in MJCR No.56/2022 by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court. By the impugned order, the application for maintenance filed on behalf of petitioner No.1 has been dismissed, whereas the application in respect of petitioner No.2 has been partly allowed and maintenance has been awarded at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 08.01.2022. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim of petitioner No.1 and the inadequacy of the maintenance awarded to petitioner No. 2, the present revision has been filed.

2. The facts of the case in brief, are that the revision petitioners filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 08.12.2022 alleging that the respondent had solemnized marriage with revision petitioner No.1 on 23.02.2020 by concealing his identity and representing himself to be a Hindu. It was further stated that revision petitioner No.1 got pregnant in June, 2020. Thereafter the true identity of the respondent came to light when revision petitioner No.1 found the respondent's Aadhaar Card which disclosed his name as Gabbar@Mustafa S/o Jakiuddin and showed him to be a follower of the Bohra community. When she opposed then respondent threatens her that he will kill her parents and also commit suicide. Petitioner no.1 got terrified. She was subjected to cruelty. She delivered revision petitioner No.2 born on 24.03.2021. A pressure was exerted to adopt Bohra religion and when petitioner no.1 denied then she was subjected to physical assault. When petitioner no.1 went to house of her parents on 02.04.2021 then respondent entered into the house of the parents of the petitioner no.1 herself. On 04.04.2021 the FIR was lodged at Police Station Dwarkapuri, District Indore and a crime No.573/2023 was registered against the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 452, 498-A, 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 and Section 425 of the IPC, as well as under section 5 read with section 3" of the Madhya Pradesh Dharmik Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2021 . There after respondent attempted to abduct revision petitioner No. 1 when she had gone to a Shiva Temple and also assaulted her. Respondent also threatened the family members of the priest of the temple. She was subjected to various threats and saved herself by entering P.S.- Dwarkapuri, District-Indore (MP). They are unable to maintain themselves. Respondent is working as gym trainer and earned Rs.30,000/- per month income. He provided personal training and earns Rs.20,000/- and performed the business of selling protein powder and earns Rs.10,000/-. He further earns Rs.10,000/- from the sale of oil. He was also engaged in working as broker of the property and earns Rs.30,000/- per month. Over all sources of income is Rs.1 Lac. per month. Each of the petitioners claiming Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance.

3. Despite service of notice respondent remains absent before this court and petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and adduce the documents Exhibit-P/1 to P/6.

4. Appreciating the evidence trial court rejected the claim of the petitioner no.1 recording the finding that petitioner no.1 is not legally wedded wife of the respondent but recorded the finding that petitioner no.2 is daughter of the respondent and discarded the documents Exhibit-P/6 recording the inco