High Court Rules on Maintenance Claims in Live-In Relationships

Court Decision on Maintenance Rights

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a review petition, stating that a woman cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) if her previous marriage has not been legally dissolved. According to sources, the woman had challenged a district court's ruling that denied her the right to maintenance.

The court acknowledged that her previous marriage remains legally valid, which invalidates any subsequent relationship, regardless of whether a marriage ceremony took place. Thus, she cannot claim maintenance based on a long-term relationship, as the law does not recognize it as a valid marriage.

The High Court emphasized that even if a marriage ceremony occurred, it would still be deemed invalid due to the applicant's existing marital ties. Therefore, she cannot seek maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC based on a long-term relationship. Justice Madan Pal Singh remarked that accepting such claims would undermine both the purpose of Section 125 and the institution of marriage.

The court further noted that allowing such practices, where a woman lives with another man while still legally married, would weaken the fundamental objectives of Section 125 of the CrPC.

Arguments Presented in Court

Additionally, the court observed that the woman had been living with the man for nearly ten years. However, it clarified that mere cohabitation does not confer legal wife status under Section 125 of the CrPC. The woman's lawyer argued that official documents, such as her Aadhaar card and passport, listed her as the man's wife, and society recognizes her as such.

It was reported that the man and his sons allegedly subjected her to cruelty, harassment, and abandonment in March 2018, prompting her to seek maintenance from the court. In its ruling on December 8, the court concluded that for the purposes of Section 125 of the CrPC, the woman does not fall within the definition of a legally married wife, and thus her maintenance petition was rightly dismissed.