Delhi High Court Says Technical Defects In Marriage Cannot Defeat Woman’s Claim For Maintenance

In a significant ruling reaffirming the social welfare objective of maintenance laws, the Delhi High Court upheld a Family Court order granting Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance to a woman, despite objections raised by her husband regarding the legality of their marriage.

The bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee emphasized that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be interpreted liberally to protect financially dependent women, even in cases involving alleged irregularities in marital status.

“…..the Hon’ble Supreme Court even upheld the right of the wife therein to claim maintenance from her second marriage though no formal decree of divorce was passed in her first marriage, considering that the husband therein was unable to prove that he was unaware of the said prior marriage, once again holding that the term ‘wife’ under Section 125 CrPC does not warrant strict construction, being a beneficial measure to secure the rights of a dependant woman and for her financial and social protection”, the Court re-iterated.

The case arose from a revision petition filed by Raj Kumar challenging an order passed by the Family Court at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which had directed him to pay maintenance to his wife, Poonam Sharma, along with arrears and litigation expenses.

The couple was married on May 26, 2009, but their relationship deteriorated over time, with the wife alleging cruelty and lack of financial support, prompting her to seek maintenance.

The petitioner contested the Family Court’s decision on multiple grounds. He argued that the respondent was already married at the time of their marriage and had not obtained a divorce from her first husband, thereby rendering their marriage invalid in law.

On this basis, he claimed that she could not be treated as a “wife” under Section 125 CrPC.

He also raised objections regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court and denied allegations of cruelty, further asserting that he was unemployed and incapable of paying maintenance.

Opposing these claims, the respondent contended that the petition was not only delayed but also devoid of merit. It was argued that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence before the Family Court to substantiate his allegations.

Importantly, the respondent’s status as a “wife” had already been upheld by the Family Court, which noted that her first husband had been missing for over 12 years and was presumed dead under law.

Additionally, the parties had cohabited openly as husband and wife, lending credibility to the marital relationship.

After examining the records and submissions, the High Court found no infirmity in the Family Court’s decision. It reiterated that the term “wife” under Section 125 CrPC cannot be construed narrowly, particularly when doing so would defeat the very purpose of the provision, which is to prevent destitution and provide social justice.

The Court relied on settled legal principles that prioritize substance over form in such matters, especially where the woman has lived in a marital relationship and is financially dependent.

The Court also rejected the petitioner’s jurisdictional challenge, observing that the Family Court had the authority to entertain the matter as the respondent was residing within its territorial limits.

On the issue of maintenance amount, the Court held that the petitioner’s claims of unemployment were unsupported by evidence, and therefore, the modest sum awarded by the Family Court did not warrant interference.

Notably, the Court underscored that revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless there is a clear legal error or material irregularity. In the present case, the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any such ground.

The Court also observed that while there was a delay in filing the revision petition, it was not the primary reason for dismissal; rather, the lack of merit in the petitioner’s arguments was decisive.

“In view of the afore-going, and particularly since the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity/ illegality/ irregularity/ patent error/ perversity/ arbitrariness in the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, that too in a petition of the present nature wherein the scope of interference by this Court is itself limited [Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr.11 , Pyla Mutyalamma (supra)], this Court does not see any reason for interfering with the impugned order”, the Court observed.

By upholding the maintenance order, the Court reinforced the principle that beneficial legislation like Section 125 CrPC must be interpreted in a manner that advances its objective of protecting vulnerable individuals, particularly women who may otherwise be left without financial support.

The ruling serves as a reminder that courts will not allow technicalities or unsubstantiated claims to override the fundamental goal of ensuring social justice.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the Family Court’s order remaining intact.

Case Title: Raj Kumar v. Smt. Poonam Sharma

Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Date of Judgement: 06.05.2026