Section 125 CrPC | Concealed Religious Identity Can't Defeat Woman's Maintenance Claim: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a woman who was allegedly induced into marriage by a man who concealed his religious identity cannot be denied maintenance merely because the relationship may not qualify as a legally valid marriage. Setting aside a Family Court order that had rejected the woman's maintenance claim, the High Court observed that such an approach would only deepen the victimisation already suffered by her.

Justice Gajendra Singh passed the order while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner and her minor daughter against the respondent. The revision challenged an August 2023 order of the Family Court, Indore, which had dismissed the mother's maintenance claim and granted only Rs. 2,000 per month to the child.

According to the case records, the woman alleged that the respondent married her on February 23, 2020, while presenting himself as a Hindu and concealing his actual identity. She claimed that she later discovered an Aadhaar card revealing his name as Gabbar alias Mustafa, son of Jakiuddin, and showing him as a member of the Bohra community. She further alleged that when she objected to the concealment, she was threatened and subjected to cruelty. A daughter was born from the relationship on March 24, 2021.

The woman also alleged that pressure was exerted upon her to adopt the Bohra faith and that she faced physical assault after refusing to do so. She subsequently lodged a criminal complaint, leading to registration of offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Madhya Pradesh Dharmik Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2021. She informed the court that she and her daughter had been left without financial support and sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Before the Family Court, the respondent remained absent despite service of notice. The petitioner led evidence and produced documents in support of her claims. However, the Family Court concluded that she could not be treated as the legally wedded wife of the respondent and therefore rejected her maintenance claim. The court nevertheless accepted that the minor girl was his daughter and awarded her maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month.

The High Court found serious fault with this reasoning. Justice Singh observed that where marriage ceremonies had been performed after concealment of religious identity and a child had been born from the relationship, the woman's claim could not be discarded merely because the marriage was later considered legally invalid.

In a significant observation, the Court held, "The finding that petitioner No.1 cannot be treated as the legally wedded wife of the respondent is unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case." It further remarked that "Such an approach results in further victimization of petitioner No.1 who had already suffered at the hands of the respondent, and thereafter was denied maintenance by the Trial Court."

The Court also reconsidered the amount of maintenance awarded to the child. The Family Court had assessed the respondent's income at a modest level and granted only Rs. 2,000 per month. The High Court noted that maintenance must be determined keeping in view the cost of living in a city such as Indore and the overall circumstances of the case.

While enhancing the relief, the Court observed, "If the respondent engages in so many unlawful activities to pressurize the revision petitioners then he ought to be aware about the liabilities." It consequently awarded maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to the woman and enhanced the daughter's maintenance from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 10,000 per month. Both amounts were directed to be paid from January 8, 2022, the date of filing of the maintenance application.

The revision petition was accordingly allowed, providing substantial relief to both the mother and child. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Rajesh Joshi. The respondent remained unrepresented despite service of notice before the High Court.

Case Title: Smt. Pooja and Others v. Gabbar @ Mustafa

Date of Order: June 22, 2026

Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh