Allahabad HC Sets Aside Maintenance to Wife Living with Man While First Husband Was Alive, Upholds Award for Minor Daughter

The Allahabad High Court partly allowed a criminal revision, denying maintenance to a woman who began residing with the revisionist while legally married to another man, but sustaining Rs.1,000 monthly for their minor daughter confirmed by DNA evidence.

Justice Achal Sachdev, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, partly allowed Criminal Revision No. 7617 of 2025 on 10 July 2026, setting aside the maintenance granted to opposite party no. 1, Smt. Ranno, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that Ranno had begun cohabiting with the revisionist, Santosh Kumar, while her first husband was still alive and without obtaining a divorce, disqualifying her from the protection of Section 125 as a “legally wedded wife.” At the same time, the court refused to disturb the Rs.1,000 per month awarded to the couple's minor daughter, Shivani, whose paternity was confirmed by a DNA report on record.

The Dispute Before the Court

The matter originated from Case No. 30 of 2019, filed by Smt. Ranno and her minor daughter Shivani before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot, under Section 125 CrPC against Santosh Kumar. The applicants sought maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month for Ranno and Rs.4,000 per month for Shivani, totalling Rs.7,000 per month, on the basis that Santosh Kumar earned approximately Rs.18,000 to Rs.20,000 per month as a mason.

The Family Court, by its order dated 14 August 2025, awarded Rs.2,000 per month to Ranno and Rs.1,000 per month to Shivani (until she attains majority), to run from the date of filing of the application. Santosh Kumar challenged both awards before the Allahabad High Court in the present criminal revision.

Ranno's case before the trial court was that her second marriage to Santosh Kumar was solemnised on 10 June 2006 through a notarised compromise in the presence of witnesses and as per Hindu rituals. She stated that after some years of cohabitation, Santosh Kumar's behaviour deteriorated — he quarrelled with her over trivial matters, beat her and Shivani, and eventually stopped providing them with food. She described herself as physically weak, frequently ill, and without any source of income.

The Legal Issue: Who Qualifies as a “Wife” Under Section 125 CrPC

The Family Court had framed four issues for decision: whether Ranno qualified as a “wife” within the meaning of Section 125 CrPC; whether Shivani was Santosh Kumar's daughter; whether the applicants were entitled to maintenance; and any other relief.

Before the High Court, counsel for Santosh Kumar argued that Ranno had been married to one Sharda Prasad and had two children from that marriage. She had begun living with Santosh Kumar without divorcing Sharda Prasad and while Sharda Prasad was still alive. Counsel pointed to Ranno's own cross-examination, in which she admitted these facts.

Counsel for Ranno countered that the marriage to Santosh Kumar on 10 June 2006 was performed as per Hindu rites, that Shivani was born from that relationship, and that Santosh Kumar had neglected to maintain both of them despite earning Rs.20,000 per month.

Section 125(4) CrPC, which the court reproduced in its judgment, bars a wife from receiving maintenance if she is living in adultery, refuses without sufficient reason to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Sachdev turned first to Ranno's own admissions in cross-examination before the trial court. She had acknowledged that she was married to Sharda Prasad approximately 15 years before she started living with Santosh Kumar, that she had two children from Sharda Prasad, that she had not obtained any divorce from Sharda Prasad, and that Sharda Prasad was alive and residing at her house when she began cohabiting with Santosh Kumar. Sharda Prasad died only while she was already residing with Santosh Kumar.

The trial court itself had returned a finding that Ranno was unable to prove marriage to Santosh Kumar as per Hindu rites and rituals, and that her husband Sharda Prasad was alive when she started residing with Santosh Kumar. Despite these findings, the trial court had still awarded maintenance to Ranno — an outcome the High Court described as erroneous.

On this basis, Justice Sachdev concluded that Ranno did not qualify as the “legally wedded wife” of Santosh Kumar and that the Family Court had erred in passing the maintenance order in her favour.

The position with respect to Shivani was entirely different. On issue no. (ii), the trial court had relied on a DNA report (paper 54 Kha on record), which established that Ranno and Santosh Kumar are the biological parents of Shivani. The High Court accepted this finding without interference. Justice Sachdev observed that it is the moral duty of a father to maintain his children who are unable to maintain themselves, and that this obligation extends to both legitimate and illegitimate children, as provided under Section 125(1)(b) CrPC. The maintenance of Rs.1,000 per month awarded to Shivani was therefore found to be well-reasoned and justified.

Outcome

The High Court partly allowed Criminal Revision No. 7617 of 2025. The impugned order dated 14 August 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot in Case No. 30 of 2019 was set aside insofar as it awarded maintenance to Smt. Ranno (applicant no. 1). The award of Rs.1,000 per month to Shivani (applicant no. 2) was left undisturbed. The order was delivered on 10 July 2026.