Summary of this article
The Allahabad High Court held that a woman deceived into marriage by concealment of the husband’s existing marriage can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The court said a husband cannot take advantage of his own wrong to deny maintenance.
The court dismissed the husband’s revision plea and revised wife's maintenance amount.
Can a man deny maintenance to a woman by claiming their marriage was void, as he was already married and had concealed the fact? The Allahabad High Court addressed this question regarding the rights of women in void marriages in a recent case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
In the judgment delivered on July 16, 2026, Justice Garima Prashad upheld the Mathura Family Court’s ruling that held the woman entitled to maintenance even if the marriage was void. Notably, the parties first approached the family court and, following the judgment in favour of the wife for maintenance, both the parties reached the High Court to challenge the judgment for different reasons. The husband challenged the family court’s judgment, arguing that the marriage was void and thus he is not liable to pay any maintenance, whereas the wife sought enhancement of the awarded maintenance amount.
Case Background
The dispute began in January 2018, when the wife filed the matter with the court for legal proceedings seeking maintenance. She informed the court that she married the man (husband) in December, 2016, according to the Hindu rites. But the husband contested the claim, saying that he had already married a woman in February 2008, and thus, this marriage is void.
The evidence also showed that he was already married. Although he had sought a divorce from his first wife, his decree of divorce was granted in November 2017, which is after one year of him getting married to the second wife.
The family court, therefore, concluded that the husband had concealed this subsisting marriage from the second wife, who entered into the relationship without the knowledge of the legal status of his first marriage.
Arguments
The husband’s primary argument was that he was not divorced at the time of the second marriage, and thus, his second marriage was void in the eyes of the law, and due to the second marriage being void, the maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is non-maintainable. He also claimed that the marriage ceremony was performed at gunpoint.
The wife, on the other hand, sought enhancement of her maintenance amount awarded by the family court. She was awarded Rs 6,000 per month maintenance, which she argued to be inadequate considering her husband is a government servant and earning around Rs 50,000 per month.
Court Observation
The high court observed that the family court had recorded a clear finding that the husband had fraudulently concealed his first marriage. It emphasised that the provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent destitution and ensure that a woman can live with dignity matching her husband’s status. Further, referring to the precedents of the Supreme Court, the court noted that a husband who duped a woman into marriage cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong by denying her maintenance.
Court Judgment
After finding no evidence of the claim of a forced marriage by the husband and the family court’s finding regarding concealing the first marriage, the High Court dismissed the husband’s revision plea. However, it allowed the wife’s request to enhance the maintenance and modified the maintenance amount as follows:
Rs 10,000 per month from the application date (January 29, 2018) until the Family Court's judgment (November 24, 2023).
Rs 12,000 per month starting from November 24, 2023, onward.
The court ordered that arrears be paid in six equal monthly instalments, and in case of a default, it permitted the family court to recover the amount by attaching his salary and other coercive legal measures.
