The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the validity of a marriage under personal law cannot override the statutory right to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. This judgment clarifies that even where a wife was married as a minor, the husband remains liable to provide interim maintenance if she is unable to support herself, regardless of the duration of the marriage or the birth of children.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rakesh, challenged an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Dewas, which directed him to pay Rs. 3,000 as a lump sum and Rs. 1,000 per month to his wife, Smt. Aasha, and their minor daughter. He contended that the marriage was void ab initio because his wife was only 16 years and 4 months old at the time of solemnization in 2008, rendering her legally incapable of consenting to marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
Procedural History
- 02.05.2008: Marriage solemnized between petitioner and respondent no.1, who was a minor.
- 25.04.2012: Birth of daughter (respondent no.2).
- 13.06.2024: Wife and daughter left marital home.
- 12.07.2024: Application filed under Section 125 CrPC for interim maintenance.
- 15.01.2025: Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 1,000/month.
- 11.02.2026: Criminal Revision dismissed by High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the interim maintenance order, arguing that the marriage was void and that he lacked means to pay, earning only Rs. 200 per day as a daily wage laborer.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a husband can evade liability for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC by asserting that the marriage was void due to the wife being a minor at the time of solemnization, particularly after a long cohabitation and the birth of a child.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, arguing that marriage with a minor is voidable and that the wife’s consent was legally invalid. He further contended that since the marriage was not valid, he could not be compelled to pay maintenance. He cited his meager income and claimed the wife was self-sufficient.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that despite the initial age of the wife, the marriage had been consummated, cohabitation continued for over 15 years, and a child was born. They emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and its applicability is not contingent on the validity of marriage under personal law.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the purpose and scope of Section 125 CrPC, noting that it is a remedial statute intended to ensure that no person is left destitute. The Court held that the validity of marriage under personal law or statutory provisions like the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act does not extinguish the obligation under Section 125 CrPC. The Court observed that the wife had lived with the petitioner for 16 years, bore his child, and was now without support.
"The fact that the marriage was contracted when the wife was a minor does not absolve the husband of his statutory obligation to maintain her, especially when the marriage has been lived as such for over a decade and a child has been born."
The Court further rejected the petitioner’s attempt to use a pending restitution of conjugal rights decree as a shield against maintenance, calling it an abuse of process. It emphasized that Section 125 CrPC operates independently of matrimonial disputes and is not contingent on the outcome of civil proceedings.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that Section 125 CrPC imposes a duty to maintain a wife regardless of the marriage’s validity under personal law, provided she is unable to maintain herself. The interim maintenance order was upheld, and the Family Court was directed to conclude the trial within six months.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Maintenance Obligation Survives Voidable Marriages
- Practitioners must advise clients that Section 125 CrPC applies even if the marriage is voidable under personal law or the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
- The duration of cohabitation and existence of children are decisive factors, not the initial age of consent.
Abuse of Process Will Be Rejected
- Filing revision petitions to delay or defeat maintenance orders will be viewed as abuse of process.
- Courts will not permit litigants to use ancillary proceedings (e.g., restitution of conjugal rights) to circumvent statutory maintenance obligations.
Interim Maintenance Is Not Conditional on Final Decree
- Interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not contingent on the outcome of civil matrimonial suits.
- The Family Court must act promptly to ensure economic justice, even while final proceedings are pending.
