Maintenance CrPC Bigamy: Allahabad HC Denies Relief to Woman in Subsisting First Marriage
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a woman who entered into a second union without legally dissolving her first marriage cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, holding she does not qualify as a “legally wedded wife” of her second partner.
A bench of Justice Achal Sachdev set aside a Family Court order directing Santosh Kumar to pay maintenance to the woman, while upholding the Rs 1,000 per month maintenance awarded to their minor daughter, according to LiveLaw.
Background: How We Got Here
The case arose from an August 2025 order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot. That order directed Santosh Kumar to pay Rs 2,000 per month to the woman and Rs 1,000 per month to their minor daughter, as reported by LiveLaw.
Santosh Kumar challenged the order by filing a criminal revision petition before the Allahabad High Court, which came to be numbered and reported as 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 389 — Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 others.
- The woman claimed her second marriage was solemnised through a compromise notarised on June 10, 2006, with Santosh Kumar in the presence of witnesses as per Hindu rituals.
- The trial court itself had recorded a finding that the woman failed to prove she was married to Santosh Kumar as per Hindu rites and rituals.
- The trial court had also noted that the woman’s first husband was alive at the time she began cohabiting with Santosh Kumar.
The Ruling — Key Findings
Justice Achal Sachdev partly allowed the criminal revision petition, setting aside the Family Court’s order to the extent it granted maintenance to the woman from Santosh Kumar, per LiveLaw.
The Court quoted its core reasoning directly: “From the perusal of evidence on record, it is clear that the applicant no. 1 does not qualify the term ‘legally wedded wife’ of the opposite party, and the trial court has erred in passing the maintenance order in favour of applicant no. 1 (woman).” — Justice Achal Sachdev, as reported by LiveLaw.
Because the woman’s first husband was still alive and no divorce had been obtained, her second union with Santosh Kumar had no legal standing, making her ineligible for relief under Section 125 CrPC.
On the daughter’s maintenance, the High Court took a markedly different view. It upheld the Rs 1,000 per month award by relying on Section 125(1)(b) CrPC, which obligates a father to maintain children — whether legitimate or illegitimate — who are unable to maintain themselves.
A DNA report on record had established that Santosh Kumar and the woman are the biological parents of the minor daughter, which the Court cited as the basis for retaining that portion of the Family Court’s order, according to LiveLaw.
The ruling reinforces a consistent line taken by the Allahabad High Court on this question. In a related December 2025 ruling, Justice Madan Pal Singh had held that even long-term cohabitation does not confer the legal status of “wife” under Section 125 CrPC if the first marriage of the woman legally subsists, as reported by LiveLaw.
That earlier ruling, read alongside the present one, signals that the court treats the legal validity of marriage — not the duration or nature of cohabitation — as the threshold question for maintenance eligibility under the provision.
Reactions & What’s Next
No statements from counsel or either party have been reported following the High Court’s order. The pre-verified sources do not indicate a further appeal or upcoming hearing date as of the time of reporting.
The ruling, however, carries immediate practical weight for family courts in Uttar Pradesh and across the country that routinely deal with maintenance petitions where the marital status of the applicant is in dispute.
Courts will now have a clear precedent — reinforced by DNA-based paternity findings — distinguishing the rights of a woman in a legally invalid second marriage from those of a child born of such a union.
More legal news at The Courtroom.
Can a woman claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if her first marriage is still legally subsisting?
No. The Allahabad High Court held in 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 389 that a woman whose first husband is alive and who has not obtained a divorce does not qualify as a “legally wedded wife” under Section 125 CrPC, and is therefore not entitled to maintenance from a second partner.
Does the child’s right to maintenance get affected if the mother’s second marriage is legally invalid?
No. The High Court upheld the minor daughter’s maintenance of Rs 1,000 per month, relying on Section 125(1)(b) CrPC, which requires a father to maintain children whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. The court relied on a DNA report confirming paternity to retain the child’s award.
Does long-term cohabitation give a woman the status of “wife” for Section 125 CrPC maintenance?
No. The Allahabad High Court ruled in December 2025 (Justice Madan Pal Singh) that even long-term cohabitation does not grant a woman the legal status of “wife” under Section 125 CrPC if her first marriage legally subsists, as reported by LiveLaw.
What was the case number and bench in the Santosh Kumar maintenance ruling?
The case is Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 others, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 389. It was decided by a single-judge bench of Justice Achal Sachdev of the Allahabad High Court, per LiveLaw.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
