Case Background
The case arose out of Maintenance Case No. 448 of 2011 filed by a woman before the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari.
On 16.11.2011, she applied under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking Rs. 20,000 per month for herself and her minor daughter. She stated that she had married the petitioner doctor on 05.05.2009 according to Hindu rites at Hanuman Mandir, Motihari, and then started living with him at her matrimonial home. During this period, a daughter was born.
She alleged that after some time, at the instance of the petitioner’s parents, siblings and relatives, the petitioner developed an illicit relationship with one Babita Devi. Due to this, she was forced to live a deserted and neglected life with her daughter. She further claimed that the petitioner, a medical practitioner running a nursing home, owned about 25 acres of agricultural land, a tractor, thresher and a large house, and had substantial income, while her own financial condition was very weak.
Later, she claimed to have learnt that the petitioner had also developed an illicit relationship with another woman, Chanda Devi, who was allegedly kept by him in his residence. In these circumstances, she said continuing matrimonial life with the petitioner had become impossible and she sought maintenance.
The doctor (petitioner in the High Court) opposed the maintenance claim. He said that she was not his wife at all. According to him, she had earlier married one Sumeshwar Kumar @ Sumesh on 16.05.2006, and a daughter was born from that marriage on 25.06.2007. She had filed a complaint case (C-195 of 2008) against her first husband and his relatives, which was later compromised and withdrawn on 08.09.2008. A divorce petition (Case No. 40 of 2009) was filed on compromise and the Lok Adalat granted divorce on 04.06.2009.
The petitioner stated that his own lawful marriage was with Babita Devi on 18.05.1997, and they had two daughters from that wedlock. He categorically denied having ever married the opposite party no.2 and alleged that she had falsely filed Complaint Case C-1012 of 2012 and the maintenance case only to extort money.
In the maintenance case, the woman examined herself and three supporting witnesses – her father, her brother and an independent witness. She produced photographs marked X to X/17 and a medical prescription of Rajendra Sewa Sadan marked X/18 for identification, as well as a certified copy of a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and an order in an anticipatory bail matter.
The doctor examined three witnesses – his wife Babita Devi, himself, and his father. He produced certified copies of the Lok Adalat divorce order in Case No. 40 of 2009, the joint divorce petition, the Lok Adalat order, and a complaint petition he had filed against opposite party no.2, along with a voter list marked for identification.
After appreciating this material, the Family Court, by order dated 05.09.2016, partly allowed the maintenance claim. It held that the petitioner had performed a second marriage with the woman without informing her about his earlier marriage with Babita Devi and had lived with her as husband and wife. It also held that the petitioner was not the father of her girl child as the child was from her first husband, and therefore no maintenance was payable for the child. However, the court found that she had no source of income, had valid reasons to live separately, and that the petitioner had the means to maintain her.
The Family Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000 per month to the woman from 01.09.2016, to be paid by the 15th day of every succeeding month, Rs. 10,000 as lump sum litigation cost, and arrears of ad interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month earlier ordered from 23.10.2013 to August 2016.
Aggrieved, the doctor approached the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1027 of 2016 challenging the maintenance order.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The High Court heard both sides. The core dispute was whether opposite party no.2 could be treated as the “wife” of the petitioner for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., and whether the Family Court’s order suffered from any material illegality or perversity justifying interference in revision.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that except for the finding that the minor girl child was from the woman’s first marriage with Sumeshwar Prasad and so not entitled to maintenance, all other findings were perverse. He stressed that the woman had allegedly married the petitioner on 05.05.2009 while her first valid marriage was still subsisting, because the Lok Adalat granted her divorce only on 04.06.2009.
On this basis, he contended that any marriage with the petitioner before 04.06.2009 was null and void, so she could not claim the status of a “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He insisted that mere cohabitation or assertion of living as husband and wife cannot create a legal status. He also challenged reliance on photographs without negatives and on an anticipatory bail order. He relied upon Supreme Court decisions in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Savitaben Somabha Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, which held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. benefits only a legally wedded wife and not a woman whose marriage is null and void because the man had a living spouse.
Opposite party no.2’s counsel supported the Family Court order. He submitted that she had clearly and consistently stated that she married the petitioner on 05.05.2009 according to Hindu rites and thereafter lived with him as wife, and that he willfully neglected and refused to maintain her despite having ample financial resources.
He further argued that, regardless of disputes about the Lok Adalat divorce decree, the evidence showed that she lived with the petitioner in a domestic relationship resembling marriage. For maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the court only needs to see whether she lived with the man in a marital or marriage-like relationship and whether he neglected her, not decide finally on the validity of the marriage. The petitioner, he argued, could not escape responsibility by technical objections about her earlier marriage.
The High Court then examined the legal framework of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It reproduced the relevant portion of the section and emphasised that this is a welfare-oriented, summary remedy meant to prevent destitution and vagrancy. It casts a duty on a person with sufficient means to maintain his wife, children and parents who cannot maintain themselves.
The Court noted that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are of a social justice nature and are summary. The court deciding maintenance is not supposed to conclusively adjudicate complex matrimonial questions. What is required is that the claimant prima facie establishes a marital or marriage-like relationship sufficient to grant maintenance, without a detailed determination of the validity or subsistence of marriage, which is for a civil court.
To explain this approach, the Patna High Court relied upon several Supreme Court judgments. It cited Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, where the Supreme Court held that an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine rights and obligations; strict proof of marriage is not needed if there is some evidence; and either party can approach a civil court for a final declaration of marital status.
The Court then referred to Chanmuniya v. Birendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, where the Supreme Court held that strict proof of marriage is not a precondition for maintenance and that Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted purposively to prevent destitution. Chanmuniya stressed that where a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a reasonably long time, the man should not be allowed to exploit legal loopholes to avoid maintenance.
The High Court also discussed the meaning of “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as elaborated in Chanmuniya, where the Supreme Court called for a broad and expansive interpretation to include women who have lived as wives for a long period, so that the object of social justice and dignity of the individual is fulfilled.
Furthermore, the High Court relied upon Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a husband who hides his earlier marriage and goes through a second marriage cannot later deny maintenance to the second woman by citing the invalidity of the marriage. The Court clarified that the earlier decisions in Yamunabai and Savitaben apply where the woman knowingly marries a man with a living spouse, not where she is kept in the dark about the first marriage.
The Patna High Court also noted that the Supreme Court’s approach in Chanmuniya was followed in Kamala and Others v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, reinforcing the trend of giving protection to women in marriage-like relationships.
Applying these principles, the High Court re-examined the evidence. It found that opposite party no.2 had consistently proved that she lived with the petitioner in a marital or marriage-like domestic relationship and that both she and her minor daughter were willfully neglected, even though the petitioner clearly had financial capacity.
The Court stressed that in Section 125 proceedings, strict proof of a valid marriage ceremony is not indispensable. The key questions are whether the woman lived with the man in such a relationship and whether he left her without means of subsistence. On the facts, the objections based on the alleged subsistence of her earlier marriage with Sumeshwar Prasad did not dislodge the prima facie proof of cohabitation and neglect.
The Court also observed that any acceptance to pay her as wife in anticipatory bail proceedings or pleadings could be used as a circumstance showing the petitioner’s conduct, though not as conclusive admission.
On the argument about the Lok Adalat divorce decree, the High Court held that disputes over its validity or alleged fraud in obtaining it were not relevant to defeat a maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Those issues properly belong to separate proceedings before a competent court. Whether the decree is void or voidable does not by itself justify denial of maintenance, once cohabitation and neglect are proved on a balance of probabilities.
The Court further found that the Family Court’s findings regarding the petitioner’s means and the woman’s indigence were based on reliable material and contained no perversity or jurisdictional error. It noted that revisional jurisdiction is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of facts where the lower court’s view is reasonable and legally sound.
Consequently, the Patna High Court affirmed the Family Court’s reasoning and order. It held that the impugned order granting Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance from 01.09.2016, arrears of ad-interim maintenance, and Rs. 10,000 towards litigation costs suffered from no defect warranting interference. The criminal revision was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for women in Bihar and elsewhere who may be in relationships that look like marriage but whose legal status is disputed.
The Patna High Court clearly states that for claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a woman does not always have to prove a perfectly valid marriage with strict formalities. If she can show that she lived with a man like his wife and was later neglected, the court can grant maintenance.
The judgment also shows that a man cannot avoid responsibility by pointing to technicalities about an earlier marriage or alleged defects in a divorce order, especially when the woman has been cohabiting with him and depending on him. Complex questions about the validity of divorce decrees can be decided separately in civil courts, but they do not stop a maintenance claim meant to prevent destitution.
For practitioners, the decision reinforces that revisional courts will rarely interfere with maintenance orders where the trial court has applied settled Supreme Court law and carefully evaluated the evidence.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a woman who lived with a man in a marriage-like relationship, while questions remain about the subsistence of her earlier marriage, claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that in Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings, strict proof of a valid marriage is not necessary; a prima facie marital or marriage-like relationship and proof of neglect are sufficient. - Issue: Did the Family Court commit any material illegality, irregularity or perversity in ordering maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month to opposite party no.2?
Answer: No. The High Court found the Family Court’s appreciation of evidence and application of law consistent with Supreme Court precedents and refused to interfere in revision. - Issue: Are disputes regarding the validity or alleged fraud in obtaining a Lok Adalat divorce decree a valid ground to defeat a maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
Answer: No. The Court held that such matters must be taken to a competent civil court and do not by themselves justify denying maintenance where cohabitation and neglect are proved.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 675
- S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara, (1971) 3 SCC 923 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 171 (as referred in Dwarika Prasad)
- Santosh v. Naresh Pal, (1998) 8 SCC 447
- Chanmuniya v. Birendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 141
- Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188
- Kamala and Others v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491
- Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr., (1988) 1 SCC 530 (relied upon by petitioner but distinguished)
- Savitaben Somabha Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 636 (relied upon by petitioner but distinguished)
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1027 of 2016
Case Title: Dr. Shyam Sundar Prasad @ Madan Raj v. State of Bihar & Sunita Devi
Citation: 2026 (2) PLJR 12
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Date of Judgment: 04.12.2025 (C.A.V.; CAV date 28.11.2025)
Lower Court Order Challenged: Order dated 05.09.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari in Maintenance Case No. 448 of 2011
Nature of the Case: Criminal revision against an order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Provision Involved: Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Uma Shankar, Advocate; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Ram Priya Saran Singh, A.P.P.
For Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Dilip Kumar Tandon, Advocate; Mr. Prateek Tandon, Advocate; Mr. Rohit Ranjan, Advocate
Final Outcome: Criminal Revision dismissed; Family Court order granting Rs. 5,000 per month maintenance to opposite party no.2, directing payment of arrears of ad-interim maintenance and Rs. 10,000 towards litigation costs, affirmed.
Link to Judgment: Click here to access the 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.
