Also Read - MP High Court Permits Minor Girl to Reside with Father Amid POCSO Allegations

The bench explained that Section 125 CrPC entitles a wife to claim maintenance only if she is a legally wedded wife of the person from whom maintenance is sought. The expression “legally wedded wife” presupposes a valid marriage subsisting at the time of the claim. A marriage entered into while the first spouse is still alive is void under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and consequently does not confer the status of a legally wedded wife. The Court held that the woman’s admission that her first husband was alive at the commencement of her relationship with Santosh Kumar, coupled with her inability to prove compliance with Hindu marital rites, rendered the second marriage void for the purposes of Section 125 CrPC.

Protection of the Minor Daughter’s Right to Maintenance

Although the woman’s claim was rejected, the High Court upheld the maintenance awarded to the minor daughter. The Court relied on a DNA report on record which established that Santosh Kumar and the woman are the biological parents of the child. Referring to Section 125(1)(b) CrPC, the bench observed that a father is obligated to maintain his children who are unable to maintain themselves, irrespective of whether the children are legitimate or illegitimate. The judgment clarified that the daughter’s entitlement to maintenance flows directly from the father’s statutory duty and is not contingent on the validity of the parents’ marriage.

Also Read - Allahabad High Court Delivers Key Rulings on Habeas Corpus, Census Duties, and PIL Maintainability in June 2026

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the criminal revision petition: it set aside the maintenance order in favour of the woman while confirming the order for the daughter’s maintenance. The revisionist remains liable to pay Rs 1,000 per month to the daughter until she attains majority.

Implications of the Judgment

The decision reinforces the principle that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is contingent upon the existence of a valid marriage at the time of the claim. It signals that parties cannot circumvent the requirement of divorce by entering into a subsequent relationship and then seeking maintenance on the basis of a putative marriage. The judgment also underscores that the welfare of children remains protected irrespective of the marital status of their parents, affirming the legislature’s intent to safeguard minors from destitution.

Also Read - Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: Key Observations on Land Disposition and Evidentiary Safeguards

Legal practitioners may view this ruling as a clarification of the interplay between personal laws governing marriage and the procedural provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It serves as a precedent for future cases where a claimant’s marital status is disputed, reminding courts to scrutinise the validity of the marriage before granting spousal maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.