MP High Court Grants Maintenance to Woman Deceived into Marriage by Man Who Concealed Religious Identity

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore set aside a Family Court order that denied maintenance to a woman whose husband had concealed his Muslim identity before marriage, holding that denying relief would further victimise her.

Justice Gajendra Singh, sitting singly at the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, on 22 June 2026 allowed a criminal revision filed by a woman and her minor daughter against an order of the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. The Family Court had denied maintenance entirely to the woman on the ground that no legally valid marriage existed, while awarding only Rs 2,000 per month to the child. The High Court found that approach unsustainable, set aside the denial of maintenance to the mother, and enhanced the child's maintenance from Rs 2,000 to Rs 10,000 per month — awarding both amounts from the date of the original application, 8 January 2022.

How the Marriage Came About and What Followed

According to the revision petition, the respondent — who went by the name Gabbar — solemnised marriage with petitioner No. 1 on 23 February 2020, representing himself to be a Hindu. She became pregnant in June 2020. The respondent's true identity surfaced when she found his Aadhaar Card, which disclosed his name as Gabbar @ Mustafa, son of Jakiuddin, and identified him as a follower of the Bohra community.

When she confronted him, the respondent threatened to kill her parents and to commit suicide. She was subjected to cruelty. Their daughter, petitioner No. 2, was born on 24 March 2021. Pressure was then applied on petitioner No. 1 to convert to the Bohra religion; when she refused, she was physically assaulted.

On 2 April 2021, when petitioner No. 1 went to her parents' home, the respondent followed and entered the house. An FIR was registered on 4 April 2021 at Police Station Dwarkapuri, District Indore, as Crime No. 573/2023, for offences 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. The Madhya Pradesh Dharmik Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2021 is a State law that regulates religious conversions.

The respondent subsequently attempted to abduct petitioner No. 1 when she visited a Shiva Temple and also threatened the family members of the temple priest. She escaped by entering Police Station Dwarkapuri.

The Maintenance Application and the Family Court's Order

The petitioners filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 8 December 2022, claiming Rs 30,000 per month each. They stated that the respondent worked as a gym trainer earning Rs 30,000 per month, provided personal training earning Rs 20,000 per month, sold protein powder earning Rs 10,000 per month, sold oil earning Rs 10,000 per month, and worked as a property broker earning Rs 30,000 per month — an aggregate of Rs 1 lakh per month.

Despite service of notice, the respondent did not appear before the Family Court. Petitioner No. 1 examined herself as PW-1 and produced documents Exhibit-P/1 to P/6.

The Family Court rejected petitioner No. 1's claim entirely, recording a finding that she was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent. As for petitioner No. 2, the court accepted that she was the respondent's daughter but discarded Exhibit-P/6 — the document recording the respondent's income from the gym — on the ground that the gym owner had not been examined. The court assessed the respondent's income at the level of a labourer, between Rs 10,000 and Rs 12,000 per month, and awarded only Rs 2,000 per month to the child from 8 January 2022.

The High Court's Reasoning

Before the High Court as well, the respondent remained absent despite service of notice.

Justice Gajendra Singh held that when marriage rituals were performed by the respondent while concealing his religious identity, and a child was born from that relationship, the Family Court committed an illegality in discarding petitioner No. 1's claim merely because the relationship could not be treated as a legally valid marriage.

The court observed that the finding that petitioner No. 1 could not be treated as the legally wedded wife was “unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.” It went further, recording that such an approach “results in further victimization of petitioner No.1 who had already suffered at the hands of the respondent.”

The reasoning is significant: the court did not rest on a technical finding of marital validity. Instead, it treated the denial of maintenance as compounding the harm already inflicted by the respondent's deception. A woman who was induced into a relationship through fraud about identity cannot, in the court's view, be left without recourse under Section 125 simply because the marriage is later found to lack legal validity.

On quantum, the court took into account the cost of living in a city like Indore. It also observed that if the respondent engaged in unlawful activities to pressurise the petitioners, he ought to be aware of the financial liabilities that flow from his conduct.

Order

The High Court set aside the Family Court's finding that denied maintenance to petitioner No. 1. It awarded Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance to petitioner No. 1 from the date of filing of the application, 8 January 2022. The maintenance awarded to petitioner No. 2 was enhanced from Rs 2,000 per month to Rs 10,000 per month, also payable from 8 January 2022. The criminal revision was allowed and disposed of accordingly.