The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted maintenance to the aggrieved mother and son while observing that merely because the husband is claiming that he was legally married to another woman cannot be a ground to deny the maintenance to the wife and son.

The High Court was considering a criminal revision filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the CrPC filed against the judgment whereby the claim of maintenance of the revision petitioners under Section 125 was denied on the ground that the revision petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and the second petitioner was not proved to be the son of the respondent.

The Single Bench of Justice Gajendra Singh held, “Merely because respondent is claiming that he was legally married to another woman Krishnabai with whom two children have been born cannot be a ground to deny the maintenance to revision petitioner no.1 and 2 as for granting maintenance as it is not required that the marriage in such proceeding be proved strictly as in a trial of offence under section 494 of the I.P.C.”

Advocate Anirudh Saxna represented the appellant, while Advocate Krishnapal Singh Khichi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The revision petitioners filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C before the Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, on the ground that the first revision petitioner was married to the respondent 14-15 years ago as per the Hindu rituals and the second petitioner was born out of wedlock. The second petitioner was residing with her mother from 2006 to 2017, and the revision petitioners were allegedly ousted from the matrimonial home. It was further claimed that no provision for maintenance was made, and the revision petitioners were not able to maintain themselves. Maintenance was sought on the ground that the respondent husband was a government servant earning Rs.40,000 per month. He also had income from some irrigated agricultural land.

Appreciating the evidence, Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya dismissed the application. The appeal preferred by the revision petitioners was also dismissed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the finding recorded by the Trial Court while rejecting the application of additional evidence.

Reasoning

Referring to the testimony of the husband, the Bench noted that the respondent at first instance denied recognising the second revision petitioner; however, he later admitted that the second revision petitioner was the son of the first revision petitioner.

The Bench drew an adverse inference against the respondent husband and held that just because he was claiming that he was legally married to another woman with whom two children had been born, it could not be a ground to deny the maintenance to the revision petitioners.

Thus, allowing the criminal revision, the Bench held that the revision petitioners would be entitled to maintenance of Rs 5,000 each i.e. a total of Rs 10,000 per month. “The maintenance awarded to revision petitioner No.1 shall continue until she remarries, and the maintenance awarded to revision petitioner No.2 shall continue until attaining majority”, it ordered.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:14727)

Click here to read/download Order


Madhya Pradesh High CourtJustice Gajendra Singh

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.