Long Cohabitation Creates Presumption of Marriage for Maintenance Under S.125 CrPC; Strict Proof Not Required: Allahabad High Court - 2025-08-12

Allahabad High Court: Strict Proof of Marriage Not a Prerequisite for Maintenance Under Sec 125 CrPC

ALLAHABAD: In a significant ruling reinforcing the social justice objective of maintenance laws, the Allahabad High Court has set aside a Family Court order that denied maintenance to a woman and her children on hyper-technical grounds. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra held that a broad and expansive interpretation must be given to the term 'wife' under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), and strict proof of marriage is not a precondition for granting maintenance, especially in cases of long cohabitation.

The court remitted the matter back to the Family Court for a fresh decision, directing it to treat the revisionist, Madhu Yadav, as the wife of the respondent, Gaurav Yadav, and ordered an interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month.

Background of the Case

The case was brought by Madhu Yadav, who sought maintenance for herself and her two minor children from a previous marriage. She claimed that after her first husband, Sriniwas, passed away, she married his younger brother, Gaurav Yadav, on June 15, 2020, as per Hindu rites. She alleged that she was later harassed for dowry and eventually thrown out of her matrimonial home after Gaurav contracted a bigamous marriage with another woman named Sangeeta.

Gaurav Yadav, a police constable, denied the marriage, stating he had only accepted the responsibility of his deceased brother's family on humanitarian grounds. He contended that he was already married to Sangeeta since 2017 and that Madhu was living as a widow in the ancestral home, possessing the property share of her late husband.

The Family Court in Deoria had dismissed Madhu's maintenance application, concluding she had failed to prove that a legally valid marriage had been solemnized with Gaurav.

Arguments Before the High Court

• For the Revisionist (Madhu Yadav): The counsel argued that the Family Court had overlooked crucial evidence, including Gaurav's admission during a departmental inquiry where he confessed to marrying Madhu. It was pointed out that a police inquiry had found Gaurav guilty of bigamy. Documents like an Aadhar card, bank account details, and a certificate from the village Pradhan supported the fact that they lived as husband and wife. The counsel relied on established legal principles that long cohabitation raises a strong presumption of marriage.

• For the Respondent (Gaurav Yadav): The respondent's counsel maintained that no marriage ever took place and that the children were not his biological offspring. He argued he was under no legal obligation to maintain them and had only agreed to look after the family out of compassion. He claimed Madhu was in possession of her deceased husband's property and had initiated multiple legal proceedings to harass him.

Court’s Observations and Legal Precedents

Justice Mishra heavily criticized the Family Court's "hyper-technical approach." The High Court's judgment placed significant weight on the evidence from a departmental police inquiry conducted against Gaurav Yadav.

In the inquiry, Gaurav himself admitted, "he contracted second marriage with Madhu Yadav with consent of his wife Sangeeta Yadav and family members of Madhu Yadav."

The inquiry report concluded that Gaurav, a government servant, was guilty of bigamy. The court found this to be prima facie proof of the marriage between Madhu and Gaurav.

Citing landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse , the court emphasized the beneficial nature of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

"We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term wife to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance..." the court reiterated, quoting the Supreme Court.

The court also noted an interesting complexity: Gaurav's first "wife," Sangeeta, had admitted in the same inquiry that her previous marriage to one Ranjeet Yadav was never legally dissolved by a decree of divorce. This placed Madhu's claim as a wife on a "higher footing," as there was no legal impediment to her marrying Gaurav after her first husband's death.

Final Decision

The High Court concluded that the Family Court had committed a legal and factual error by dismissing the maintenance plea. The judgment stated:

"The finding of lower court that this fact is not proved that applicant Madhu Yadav is legally wedded wife of opposite party and she is not entitled to seek maintenance from him cannot be countenanced. Learned trial court has taken a hyper technical approach while rejecting the claim of maintenance..."

Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the Family Court's order dated October 18, 2023, and remanded the case for a fresh decision. It directed the respondent, Gaurav Yadav, to pay an interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month to Madhu Yadav from the date of the order, pending the final disposal of the case.