[ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad ]

Allahabad HC Calls for Family Court Judge's Explanation After Maintenance Awarded Despite Wife's Remarriage on Record

The Allahabad High Court has asked a Family Court judge at Jhansi to explain why he directed a divorced husband to pay Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance to his ex-wife even after her remarriage was placed on record in the very same proceedings.

Manaswi Singh — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad — 13 July 2026 — 5 min read

Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, sitting singly at the Allahabad High Court, took up Criminal Revision No. 3561 of 2026 filed by Rajesh Chaturvedi, a divorced husband challenging an order dated 10 March 2026 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. That order directed Chaturvedi to pay Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance to his former wife, Opposite Party No. 2, under Section 125 CrPC, in Case No. 621 of 2021. The revisionist's core grievance was that the Family Court issued this direction even though his objection, placed on record in October 2025, expressly disclosed that his ex-wife had remarried after the divorce decree. The High Court issued notice to the opposite party and, separately, called upon the Family Court judge to furnish a personal explanation.

The Sequence of Events Before the Family Court

The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi dissolved the marriage between Rajesh Chaturvedi and his wife by judgment and decree dated 30 July 2025 in Case No. 621 of 2021.

Chaturvedi challenged that dissolution before the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 736 of 2025. In that appellate proceeding, the wife filed a short counter-affidavit. Paragraph 4 of that affidavit stated that after the divorce decree of 30 July 2025, she had remarried on 3 September 2025 — within 30 days of the decree — and attached her own affidavit dated 18 September 2025 as Annexure CA-1 to support that claim.

The fact of remarriage also surfaced in an order of this Court dated 19 September 2025, passed in the First Appeal. When a prayer for interim stay of the divorce decree was made, the court noted the statutory bar. On a query from the bench, the wife's counsel confirmed that his client had already remarried. The matter was listed for 14 October 2025.

Armed with this material, Chaturvedi filed a written objection dated 30 October 2025 in the ongoing Section 125 CrPC proceedings before the Family Court, Jhansi. Paragraph 1 of that objection disclosed the fact of the second marriage. Despite having this objection before it, the Family Court passed an order on 10 March 2026 directing Chaturvedi to pay Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.

The Revisionist's Position Before the High Court

Counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Vatsala, argued that after remarriage, the opposite party is not entitled to any maintenance from Chaturvedi. She pressed for partial setting aside of the order dated 10 March 2026 to the extent of the Rs 10,000 maintenance awarded to the wife.

Regarding the couple's minor son, counsel stated that the revisionist raised no objection to paying maintenance for the child. Chaturvedi expressed readiness to pay Rs 5,000 per month to the minor son in compliance with the March 2026 order.

The revisionist's case was that the Family Court had before it clear, uncontroverted material — a party's own sworn affidavit and an order of the High Court recording counsel's confirmation — establishing that the wife had remarried. Despite this, the court chose to ignore the October 2025 objection and proceeded to award maintenance to her.

Why the High Court Directed a Personal Explanation

Justice Praveen Kumar Giri found sufficient cause to direct the concerned judicial officer to explain his conduct. The court ordered Sri Harish Chandra, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi (J.O. No. UP 1757), to submit his explanation as to why, despite the fact of the wife's second marriage being disclosed in the objection dated 30 October 2025, he passed the order directing the revisionist to pay Rs 10,000 to the wife.

The direction for a judicial officer's explanation in a revision proceeding is a measure reserved for situations where the record before the trial court appears to have been overlooked in a manner that requires an account. The bench did not express any final view on the merits of the maintenance dispute, but the nature of the direction signals that the apparent gap between what was on the trial court's record and what the trial court ordered warranted scrutiny.

Directions Issued

The High Court issued the following directions on 7 July 2026:

Notice was issued to Opposite Party No. 2 to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks.
Sri Harish Chandra, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi (J.O. No. UP 1757), was directed to submit his explanation on or before the next date of hearing.
The learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to communicate the order to Opposite Party No. 2 through the concerned police station.
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi, for immediate onward communication to Opposite Party No. 2 so that she may appear before the court either personally or through counsel on the next date. The Registrar (Compliance) was also directed to communicate the order to the concerned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi for submission of his explanation.
The matter was listed as a fresh case on 21 July 2026.

Outcome

The criminal revision was admitted for hearing. The Family Court judge has been called upon to personally explain the maintenance order of 10 March 2026 in light of the objection dated 30 October 2025, which placed the wife's remarriage on record. The matter is next listed on 21 July 2026.