Madras High Court: Wife Entitled to Maintenance Even If Marriage Is Not Legal
The Madras High Court has ruled that a woman and her child have the right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), even if the marriage is not legally valid due to the existence of a previous marriage.
Justice K Murali Shankar of the Madurai bench upheld a Family Court’s order directing a man to pay ₹10,000 per month each to his second wife and their child. The court rejected the husband’s claims that the marriage was invalid and that he had no financial obligation toward them.
Case Background
A woman filed a maintenance petition against her husband, claiming that:
- He failed to provide financial support for her and their child.
- He demanded ₹25 lakh as dowry and began avoiding her when she could not fulfill the demand.
- He had a monthly salary of ₹50,000 and earned ₹90,000 in rent from 11 properties.
The man, however, denied the marriage and paternity of the child, stating that:
- He had married another woman in 2011 and had a child from that marriage.
- His divorce case was still pending in court.
- His monthly salary was only ₹11,500, and he was already paying ₹7,000 as maintenance to his first wife and child.
Court’s Observations
The court examined evidence, including a wedding invitation, marriage photos, and the child’s birth certificate. It concluded that since the first marriage was still legally valid, the second marriage was not legally recognized.
However, the court emphasized that even if the marriage was not valid, the woman and child still had a right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC because:
- The couple had lived together as husband and wife.
- The man refused to take a DNA test to prove or disprove paternity.
- His WhatsApp messages and call records supported the woman’s claims of a relationship.
Final Verdict
The court ruled that the trial court’s maintenance order was justified, noting that:
- The man failed to provide salary proof to counter the woman’s claim about his income.
- His claim of earning only ₹11,500 per month was unsubstantiated.
- The ₹10,000 per month maintenance for both the woman and child was not excessive.
Thus, the petition was dismissed, and the maintenance order was upheld.
Legal Significance
This ruling reaffirms that a woman and child are entitled to financial support under Section 125 CrPC, regardless of the legal validity of the marriage. The court also highlighted that refusing a DNA test could be seen as an admission of paternity.
This judgment strengthens women’s and children’s rights in matrimonial disputes, ensuring that they receive financial support even in cases of disputed marriages.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
