Case Background
The case arose from a maintenance petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by a woman against a man she described as her husband and father of her two sons.
According to the petitioner, she married Opposite Party No. 1 in June 2010 at village Damodarpur, P.S. Bhabhua, District Kaimur. She stated that two sons, Veer Kumar Singh and Virat Kumar Singh, were born from this relationship.
She further stated that Opposite Party No. 1 was posted as a Constable in Bihar Police at District Aurangabad and was drawing a salary of about Rs. 45,000 per month.
The petitioner alleged that for the last six years, Opposite Party No. 1 had abandoned her and the children, stopped maintaining them, and cut all ties. Being a pardanashin lady, she claimed she had been surviving with help from her aged and ailing father, who was no longer able to support her. She therefore filed Maintenance Case No. 76(M) of 2022 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaimur at Bhabhua.
After receiving notice of the maintenance case on 22.08.2022, Opposite Party No. 1 filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registered as Matrimonial Case No. 244 of 2022 before the same Family Court. However, on 05.12.2023, the very day he filed his objection to the maintainability of the maintenance case, he withdrew the divorce petition with liberty to file a fresh petition under a different provision.
In his reply in the maintenance case, Opposite Party No. 1 denied the marriage altogether. He claimed that the petitioner was in fact his brother’s widow. On this basis, he argued that any marriage between them would fall within the prohibited degrees of relationship under Hindu law and would be void ab initio. He therefore sought dismissal of the maintenance petition as not maintainable.
The petitioner, in her rejoinder dated 05.12.2023, asserted that their marriage was solemnized as per long-standing Hindu customs in their community. She specifically relied on a custom allowing a widow to marry the younger brother of her deceased husband, commonly known as a levirate marriage. She claimed that this practice had been socially recognized and followed in their community for generations.
Despite these pleadings, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaimur at Bhabhua, by order dated 20.06.2024, dismissed the Section 125 Cr.P.C. application at the threshold. The Family Court held that the petition was not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of Opposite Party No. 1.
Aggrieved by this dismissal, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 678 of 2024 before the Patna High Court. The criminal revision challenged the legality and correctness of the Family Court’s order and sought restoration of her maintenance case for proper adjudication.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, closely examined whether the Family Court was right in rejecting the maintenance petition at the threshold on the ground that the petitioner was supposedly not a “legally wedded wife”.
The High Court first noted that the key question before the Family Court was not to finally and conclusively declare whether the marriage was valid or void. Instead, at the stage of maintainability under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the real question was whether the petitioner had at least a prima facie right to claim maintenance as a wife or in a relationship akin to marriage.
The Court observed that in Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings, strict proof of a valid marriage, as required in pure matrimonial disputes, is not always necessary. It is well-settled that when parties have lived together as husband and wife and are socially accepted as such, especially where children have been born out of that relationship, maintenance can be considered even if the marriage is disputed.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the expression “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This approach aims to protect women who have lived in a marital relationship and to ensure their right to maintenance is not defeated by technical objections.
The Patna High Court then turned to the crucial issue of levirate marriage. It referred to Section 5(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which prohibits marriages within degrees of prohibited relationship “unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits a marriage between the two.” The Court also referred to Section 3(a) of the Act, which defines “custom” as a rule that has been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time and has obtained the force of law among a particular community or group.
The petitioner had specifically pleaded that, in her community, it was a long-established custom for a widow to marry the younger brother of her deceased husband, and that her marriage was performed in accordance with this custom. The High Court held that once such a custom is pleaded, a court cannot simply ignore it and dismiss the claim summarily.
In support of this principle, the Court referred to Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari, (1952) 1 SCC 713, where the Supreme Court held that courts are duty-bound to examine a pleaded custom before rejecting a claim. Summary dismissal without framing issues or permitting evidence on custom was held to be contrary to law and a denial of justice.
The Court also cited Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized that long-standing cohabitation between a man and woman gives rise to a strong presumption of valid marriage, particularly when society treats them as husband and wife.
Applying these principles, the High Court noted that the record showed that the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 1 had resided together for a considerable period, long enough to have two children. It observed that both children were acknowledged by the family. Their social acceptance was clear from the fact that the children were recognized as part of the family, even though the man was now disputing the marriage.
The Court commented that there was a glaring inconsistency in disowning the petitioner merely on the ground that the marriage was levirate, while at the same time accepting the children as legitimate members of the family. The Court described this as not only a legal contradiction but also a moral and social injustice.
The High Court emphasized that Section 5(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act itself allows a valid marriage within prohibited degrees if backed by a proved custom. In this case, the custom had been specifically pleaded and there were supporting circumstances such as cohabitation, social acceptance and parenthood.
The Court warned that denying the petitioner the status of wife in these circumstances would amount to using technicalities to discard a woman who had fulfilled the role of wife and mother. Such an approach would set a dangerous precedent and undermine both the dignity of women and the security of children.
The High Court further observed that in matters like this, social justice and the welfare of children must prevail over rigid, technical interpretations of law. It reiterated that the welfare of the child is paramount in Indian law and that the security of the mother, usually the primary caregiver, cannot be separated from this consideration.
The Court also referred to broader principles of gender justice and constitutional morality, as endorsed by the Supreme Court in various rulings, to underline that women in such relationships deserve protection and recognition, especially when the man and his family have benefited from the union for years.
The High Court additionally took note of the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Bhola Ram v. Mukesh Devi, decided on 21 October 2022, where kareva (a form of widow remarriage within the family) practiced by some communities like Yadavs was acknowledged.
The Patna High Court then discussed the nature of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It highlighted that this is a welfare-oriented provision, meant to prevent destitution and vagrancy. It is not confined in a rigid way by personal law rules. The Court referred to Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 299, where the Supreme Court held that even a spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act may claim permanent alimony or maintenance under Section 25 of that Act, depending on the facts and the conduct of the parties.
On this foundation, the Patna High Court concluded that the petitioner, who had lived as a wife, borne children, and been deserted without support, fell within the protective umbrella of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the technical plea of invalid marriage could not, in the circumstances, be a valid ground to deny her maintenance at the threshold.
The Court also held that the existence of children born from the union further strengthened the presumption of a valid marriage, or at least a relationship akin to marriage, entitling her to seek maintenance.
Therefore, the High Court found that the Family Court’s order rejecting the maintenance petition solely on the ground that the marriage was void was legally unsustainable. The Family Court had failed to properly inquire into the existence of the pleaded custom and the fact of cohabitation, and had not considered the welfare of the children.
Accordingly, by judgment dated 10.07.2025, the Patna High Court set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 passed in Maintenance Case No. 76(M) of 2022. The criminal revision was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Family Court, Kaimur at Bhabhua, with a direction to restore the maintenance case to its original number. The Family Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law, giving both sides proper opportunity to lead evidence, particularly on the questions of custom and cohabitation.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for women in Bihar and across India who are in similar relationships, especially widows who have remarried within the family under customary practices.
The Patna High Court has clearly said that a Family Court cannot reject a maintenance petition at the very start merely because the husband disputes the marriage, especially when the woman has lived as a wife and borne children.
The decision also recognizes that customs like levirate or kareva marriages may be valid if they are long-standing and accepted within a community. Courts must first examine such customs through evidence instead of brushing them aside.
For low-income women, especially pardanashin ladies with little education or support, this judgment reinforces that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant to protect them from destitution and cannot be blocked by technical pleas about marriage validity without proper inquiry.
The judgment also indirectly protects children born from such unions, by linking their welfare to the financial and social security of their mother. It sends a clear message that men cannot accept the benefits of such relationships for years and later turn around to deny responsibility.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. be dismissed at the threshold on the ground that the woman is not a “legally wedded wife” because the alleged marriage is a levirate marriage within prohibited degrees?
Answer: No. Where custom permitting such a marriage is specifically pleaded, and there is cohabitation, social acceptance and children from the union, the court must first examine the custom and relationship. The petition cannot be rejected outright on technical grounds. - Issue: Does cohabitation, social recognition and birth of children create at least a prima facie basis to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., even if the marriage is disputed?
Answer: Yes. Long-standing cohabitation and acceptance as husband and wife, especially with children, raise a strong presumption of a valid marriage or a relationship akin to marriage, supporting a maintenance claim. - Issue: Was the Family Court right in dismissing the maintenance case without trial on custom and cohabitation?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that such dismissal was legally unsustainable, set aside the order, and remanded the case for fresh consideration with evidence on custom and cohabitation.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141
- Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari, (1952) 1 SCC 713
- Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527
- Bhola Ram v. Mukesh Devi, Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided on 21.10.2022
- Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 299
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 678 of 2024; arising out of Maintenance Case No. 76(M) of 2022; PS Case, District Kaimur (Bhabua) (Year not specified)
Case Title: Sangeeta Devi v. Pawan Kumar Singh & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Citation: 2025 (3) PLJR 759
Advocates: For the petitioner: Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate; Mr. Manogya Singh, Advocate; Mr. G. R. Shahi, Advocate; Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Criminal revision against an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaimur at Bhabhua, dismissing a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Date of High Court Judgment: 10.07.2025
Impugned Order: Order dated 20.06.2024 passed in Maintenance Case No. 76(M) of 2022 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaimur at Bhabhua.
Result: Criminal revision allowed; impugned order quashed; matter remanded to Family Court to restore and decide the maintenance petition after recording evidence, particularly on custom and cohabitation.
Link to Judgment: Click here to view the official Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
