The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that a man’s obligation to provide maintenance under Section 125 CrPC arises not from the validity of a formal marriage, but from his factual relationship and responsibility toward a woman and child with whom he has lived as husband and wife. This ruling reinforces the protective intent of Section 125, prioritizing social justice over procedural formalities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, a senior government official, concealed his prior marriage and entered into a relationship with respondent No.1, a data entry operator, in 2014 - 15. He represented himself as unmarried, and the two solemnized a Hindu marriage on 21.07.2016. They cohabited at multiple locations due to his transfers, and a daughter, respondent No.2, was born on 15.02.2018. When respondent No.1 discovered the applicant’s prior marriage, a compromise agreement was executed in 2021, wherein he agreed to pay Rs.15,000 per month as maintenance. He made payments briefly but stopped from November 2021. The respondents, left without income, filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance.
Procedural History
- 2023: Application under Section 125 CrPC filed before Family Court, Kabirdham
- 13.11.2024: Family Court ordered maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month each to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2
- 2024: Criminal revision filed in Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the order
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the maintenance order, arguing that no valid marriage was proved under the Hindu Marriage Act and that documentary evidence was inadmissible. The respondents sought continuation of the maintenance order as a matter of right under Section 125 CrPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 125 CrPC requires proof of a legally valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act to grant maintenance, or whether cohabitation as husband and wife and acknowledgment of paternity suffice.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the Family Court erred in relying on unproved oral testimony and inadmissible documentary evidence. Photographs (A-1 to A-36) lacked certification under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the compromise agreement (Exhibit-P/37) was not proved by examining the scribe or attesting witnesses. He contended that without a valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondents cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
For the Respondent
Counsel countered that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The applicant admitted to cohabitation, fathered a child, and made voluntary payments under a compromise. The Court need not insist on rigid proof of marriage when the factual relationship and paternity are established.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature and purpose of Section 125 CrPC, emphasizing its remedial and humanitarian character. It held that the provision does not require a ceremonial or legally valid marriage. The key is whether the parties lived together as husband and wife and whether the man is the biological father of the child.
"The object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution of women and children who are left without means of support due to the conduct of the man with whom they lived as husband and wife."
The Court rejected the argument that photographs required Section 65-B certification in this context, noting that the Family Court was entitled to consider them as part of a broader evidentiary picture, especially where they corroborated consistent cohabitation. The compromise agreement, though not formally proved, was relevant as it demonstrated the applicant’s prior acknowledgment of responsibility. The Court observed that the applicant’s conduct - living with the woman, fathering a child, and making payments - constituted sufficient grounds for maintenance.
The Court distinguished Lalita Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, noting that those cases dealt with bigamy or conversion, not maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Here, the focus was not on the legality of marriage but on the moral and legal duty to support dependents.
The Verdict
The applicant’s revision was dismissed. The Court held that Section 125 CrPC entitles a woman and her child to maintenance if they have lived with the man as husband and wife, regardless of whether the marriage was legally valid. Paternity and cohabitation are sufficient to trigger the obligation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cohabitation Is Enough for Maintenance
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 125 CrPC applies even in live-in relationships where there is no registered marriage
- Evidence of long-term cohabitation, public recognition as spouses, and financial support are decisive
- Formal marriage certificates are not mandatory; oral testimony and circumstantial evidence suffice
Paternity Trumps Denial Without DNA
- A man’s refusal to acknowledge paternity cannot override established facts of cohabitation and childbearing
- Courts may infer paternity from conduct, including voluntary payments and compromise agreements
- DNA testing is not a prerequisite; the burden shifts to the man to disprove paternity with credible evidence
Documentary Evidence Is Evaluated Holistically
- Photographs and unauthenticated documents may be considered alongside oral testimony in maintenance proceedings
- Strict compliance with Section 65-B is not always required in civil or quasi-civil proceedings under Section 125 CrPC
- Family Courts have discretion to assess evidence on a totality-of-circumstances basis
