Section 125 CrPC | MP High Court Raises Child Marriage Victim's Maintenance, Says Parents Cannot Escape Liability

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has enhanced the monthly maintenance awarded to a woman who was married as a child, observing that she continued to face the consequences of a marriage arranged during her childhood and could not be left with a meagre amount for survival. The Court also made a significant observation that parents who solemnize child marriages cannot evade responsibility for the hardships that follow such unlawful unions.

Justice Gajendra Singh passed the order while allowing a criminal revision petition against an order of the Family Court at Neemuch, which had awarded her maintenance of only Rs.2,000 per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Appearing for the petitioner-wife, Advocate Nitin Joshi challenged the Family Court's decision and sought enhancement of the maintenance amount. The plea was opposed by Advocate Subodh Choudhary on behalf of the respondent-husband.

According to the case records, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on April 27, 2015. The wife moved an application for maintenance on August 7, 2021, alleging that she had been subjected to cruelty, neglected by her husband, and was unable to maintain herself despite the husband having sufficient means. She sought maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month along with an additional amount of Rs. 2,000 towards accommodation expenses.

The husband resisted the claim, contending that at the time of marriage the wife was only 13 years old while he was 18 years old. He further claimed that after the marriage he shifted to Udaipur, no physical relationship was established between them, and the allegations of cruelty were false. He also alleged that the wife was not interested in continuing the matrimonial relationship.

After considering the evidence led by both sides, including the testimony of the wife as a prosecution witness and the evidence of the husband and another witness, the Family Court partly allowed the maintenance application and awarded Rs.2,000 per month from the date of the order, April 19, 2023.

The High Court found the amount awarded by the Family Court to be inadequate. While examining the husband's own defence that the wife was only 13 years old at the time of marriage, Justice Singh observed that the woman was effectively a victim of child marriage and continued to suffer because of circumstances created by adults around her.

In a strongly worded observation, the Court said, "If the defense of the respondent/husband is taken at its face value then it emerges that revision petitioner was a victim of child marriage and thereafter in the garb of customs, she again is being victimized by providing the only meager amount of maintenance."

The Court further remarked, "It is sad picture of the right of the girls. She cannot be denied reasonable amount of maintenance." Holding that an amount of Rs.2,000 per month could not be justified, the Court enhanced the maintenance to Rs.6,000 per month. Importantly, the enhanced amount was directed to be paid from the date of filing of the maintenance application, August 7, 2021, rather than from the date of the Family Court's order.

The judgment also underscored the responsibility of families that facilitate child marriages. The Court observed that parents who are instrumental in conducting such marriages cannot later distance themselves from the resulting consequences. It stated, "Parents, who are instrumental in solemnizing such marriage cannot escape from the liability." The Court added that if the husband experiences hardship in meeting the maintenance obligation, he may seek assistance from those parents who were responsible for arranging the child marriage.

Allowing the revision petition, the High Court modified the Family Court's order and directed payment of enhanced maintenance, reinforcing that victims of child marriage are entitled to meaningful financial support and dignity under the law.

Case Title: R v. H

Date of Order: May 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh