Sushila v. Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary, 2026

The revisionist-wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son.

She alleged that she and the opposite party had applied for a court marriage in September 2017.

According to her, after they started living together, she was subjected to dowry demands, harassment, and physical assault by the husband and his family.

She alleged that they demanded a four-wheeler as dowry and ultimately expelled her and the minor child from the matrimonial home.

She sought ₹25,000 per month as maintenance for herself and ₹15,000 per month for her son.

The opposite party admitted that both had applied for court marriage but contended that the marriage was never formally solemnized.

He, however, admitted that they had lived together in his government accommodation at Gorakhpur and that a son was born from their relationship.

The Family Court dismissed the wife's claim solely on the ground that she failed to produce documentary proof establishing a valid marriage.

The Family Court nevertheless awarded ₹5,000 per month as maintenance to the minor child while describing him as an illegitimate child.

Aggrieved by the rejection of her maintenance claim, the wife filed a criminal revision before the Allahabad High Court.

The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision petition.

The Court set aside the Family Court's order insofar as it rejected the wife's maintenance claim.

The Court held that where continuous cohabitation as husband and wife is otherwise established, strict proof of a legally valid marriage should not be insisted upon for the purpose of Section 125 CrPC.

The Court observed that the Family Court completely ignored the husband's admissions regarding the parties' cohabitation and the birth of their child.

The Court held that maintenance proceedings require a purposive and socially contextual interpretation rather than a rigid technical approach.

The Court found that the Family Court's order reflected non-application of mind and mechanical consideration of the evidence.

The High Court upheld the direction granting ₹5,000 per month as maintenance to the minor child.

The Court reiterated that Section 125 CrPC obligates a father to maintain both legitimate and illegitimate children.

The matter was remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration of the wife's maintenance claim.

Both parties were directed to file financial disclosure affidavits in accordance with the Rajnesh guidelines, and the Family Court was directed to decide the matter within three months.

The judgment reinforces the beneficial object of Section 125 CrPC, which is intended to prevent destitution and provide social justice rather than determine complicated questions of matrimonial status.

By relying upon Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, the Court reaffirmed that maintenance provisions must be interpreted liberally to protect economically vulnerable women.

The Court rightly emphasized that long cohabitation and admissions by the respondent may constitute sufficient prima facie evidence of a marital relationship for maintenance proceedings.

The decision discourages excessive reliance on technical deficiencies in proof where the factual relationship between the parties is otherwise established.

The judgment also highlights the importance of judicial application of mind, criticizing mechanical disposal of maintenance cases.

By affirming maintenance for the child irrespective of legitimacy, the Court upheld the statutory protection afforded to children under Section 125 CrPC.

The direction to follow the Rajnesh guidelines promotes transparency in determining the financial capacity of the parties and facilitates fair assessment of maintenance.

The ruling advances the constitutional values of social justice, dignity, and protection of women and children within family law.