Allahabad HC Sets Aside Maintenance Denial, Faults Family Court for Ignoring Admitted Cohabitation and Court Marriage Application

The Allahabad High Court set aside a Family Court order denying maintenance to a wife, holding that the trial court ignored the husband's own admissions about cohabitation, a court marriage application, and the birth of their child.

The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj, which denied maintenance to a woman under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Achal Sachdev, sitting singly at Court No. 18, found that the trial court had decided the question of the woman's marital status in a mechanical and cursory manner, entirely bypassing the husband's own admissions about their joint application for court marriage, their cohabitation at his government accommodation, and the birth of their son. The matter has been remanded for fresh adjudication. The child's maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month, which the Family Court had already directed, was left undisturbed.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Smt Sushila filed Maintenance Application No. 298 of 2019 before the Family Court, Maharajganj, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking Rs. 25,000 per month for herself and Rs. 15,000 per month for her minor son from Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary.

Her case was that her marriage with Rajiv Kumar was solemnised through a court marriage on 21 September 2017. Despite her family providing substantial dowry, she alleged that her husband and in-laws soon harassed her for additional dowry, particularly demanding a four-wheeler. She said she was beaten and expelled from her matrimonial home on 23 October 2017, that village elders intervened, and that she was later taken to Gorakhpur by her husband, where they lived together in his government quarters. A son was born from the relationship. She further alleged that on 19 March 2019, she was confined in a room, brutally assaulted, subjected to an attempt to strangulate her, and ultimately driven out after her stridhan was taken away. Since then, she has been living at her parental home with her child, with no financial support from her husband, who she described as earning a salary as a lab technician at Digvijay Nath Degree College and also having agricultural income.

Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary contested the claim. His counsel submitted that while an application for court marriage was submitted before the District Magistrate on 21 September 2017, the marriage was not legally formalised and that he had taken Sushila to live with him under pressure from her and her family. He asserted that Sushila never lived with his family in the village, was never subjected to dowry demands or assault, and that after a few months she became quarrelsome, demanded money for expensive items, neglected household duties, and maintained illicit relationships. He added that Rajiv Kumar had filed a divorce petition and had reported the matter to senior police officials.

The Family Court framed Issue No. 1 as to whether Sushila was the legally wedded wife of Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary. On that issue, it held against her, finding that she had produced only a photocopy of the notice before the Marriage Officer, Gorakhpur, and that no document on record established her as a legally wedded wife. On that basis, it denied her maintenance. In the same order, however, the Family Court awarded Rs. 5,000 per month to the minor child, characterising him as the illegitimate child of Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary.

Sushila challenged the denial of her own maintenance before the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 3622 of 2024. The revision was admitted after the High Court found the matter revisable.

The Legal Question

The central question was whether the Family Court was justified in denying maintenance to Sushila solely on the ground that strict proof of a valid marriage was not established, when the husband himself had admitted to jointly applying for court marriage, to cohabiting with Sushila at his government accommodation, and to fathering a child with her.

A secondary but connected question was whether the trial court had complied with the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324], which require both parties to file affidavits disclosing income, assets, and liabilities before the quantum of maintenance is determined.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Achal Sachdev identified two distinct failures in the Family Court's approach.

The first was the wholesale disregard of material admissions. In the revision proceedings before the High Court, Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary candidly admitted that he and Sushila had applied for a court marriage before the competent Magistrate, though the formal procedure could not be completed. He also acknowledged the birth of a child from his relationship with her and the fact that after Sushila was turned out of his family home by his father, he himself took her to his government accommodation where they resided together. None of these admitted facts found any reflection in the Family Court's judgment on Issue Nos. 1 and 2.

Justice Achal Sachdev held that the manner in which Issue No. 1 was dealt with showed “clear non-application of mind in a cursory manner and mechanical manner.” The trial court had, in the same breath, held that Sushila was not a legally wedded wife and that her son was the illegitimate child of Rajiv Kumar—a conclusion that internally acknowledged the relationship while ignoring its legal significance for the maintenance claim.

The bench also noted that the trial court had entirely ignored the birth certificate of the child filed by Sushila, which supported her claim that the child was Rajiv Kumar's son.

The second failure concerned the income disclosure affidavits. The Supreme Court's guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha require courts adjudicating maintenance disputes to direct both parties to file detailed affidavits of income, assets, and liabilities. The Family Court made no effort to seek such affidavits before determining entitlement. Justice Achal Sachdev noted that where a party has made only oral assertions about the other's income without producing evidence, the affidavits mandated by Rajnesh assume decisive importance. A decision rendered without consideration of such affidavits amounts to a departure from binding guidelines.

On the applicable legal standard, the bench drew on the Supreme Court's ruling in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [(2014) 1 SCC 188], which held that where a man and a woman have lived together as husband and wife and the relationship is otherwise established, strict proof of a valid marriage should not be insisted upon so as to defeat the beneficial object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The provision is to be interpreted purposively and in a socially contextual manner, not in a technical or purely adversarial way.

Justice Achal Sachdev also addressed the scope of revisional jurisdiction. Relying on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa (Deceased) through LRs v. Mahendra Watch Company & Ors. [2026 INSC 348], he reiterated that a High Court exercising revisional powers cannot reassess or re-analyse evidence merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only when findings are perverse, based on no evidence, reflect a misreading of evidence, or result in a miscarriage of justice. The bench found that this threshold was met in the present case, because the trial court's findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were devoid of proper judicial application of mind and failed to consider material circumstances directly bearing on Sushila's entitlement.

On the child's maintenance, the bench found no perversity or illegality. Section 125 Cr.P.C. makes it obligatory for a father to maintain his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, who is unable to maintain himself. The Rs. 5,000 per month directed by the trial court was therefore affirmed, and since the child had not challenged that order, it was left to stand.

Directions Issued

The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision and set aside the impugned judgment dated 5 March 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj, insofar as it rejected Sushila's claim for maintenance.

The matter was remanded to the Family Court for fresh adjudication of Issue Nos. 1 and 2. The trial court has been directed to consider the admissions of Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary and to apply the purposive interpretation mandated by Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse.

Both parties have been directed to file detailed affidavits of disclosure of income, assets, and liabilities in the format prescribed in Rajnesh v. Neha. The trial court is required to determine the quantum of maintenance strictly on the basis of such affidavits and evidence. The Family Court has been asked to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Order

Criminal Revision No. 3622 of 2024 was partly allowed by Justice Achal Sachdev on 10 July 2026. The Family Court's order dated 5 March 2024 in Maintenance Case No. 298 of 2019, insofar as it denied maintenance to Sushila, was set aside. The award of Rs. 5,000 per month to the minor child was affirmed. The matter was remanded for fresh determination on both entitlement and quantum, with mandatory income-disclosure affidavits to be filed by both parties before the Family Court, Maharajganj.