# Madhu Yadav & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 1011
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 6354 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/madhu-yadav-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53693
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the
applicant failed to strictly prove a valid marriage
was sustainable, when evidence on record
disclosed long cohabitation, admissions in
departmental inquiry, and circumstances raising
a presumption of marital relationship warranting
a beneficial and purposive interpretation of the
term "wife".

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.125
- Maintenance - Meaning of "wife" -
Live-in relationship - Presumption of
marriage - Beneficial construction -
Strict proof of marriage not mandatory -
Departmental
inquiry
admissions
-
Hyper-technical approach deprecated -
Interim maintenance - Remand.

Held:
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social welfare provision
intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution of
women and children. The expression "wife"
requires
a
broad
and
purposive
interpretation, and strict proof of a legally
valid marriage is not a sine qua non where
evidence indicates long cohabitation and holding
out as husband and wife. [Paras 16-20, 32]

Where parties lived together as husband and
wife for a considerable period, a presumption
in favour of marriage arises, rebuttable only
by cogent evidence. Admissions made by the
husband and his alleged first wife during a
departmental
inquiry,
acknowledging
solemnisation of marriage with the applicant,
constitute strong prima facie material supporting
such presumption. [Paras 25-29]

The Family Court erred in adopting a hypertechnical approach by insisting upon strict proof
of marriage, ignoring documentary evidence,
admissions in inquiry proceedings, and settled
law that maintenance claims cannot be defeated
on technicalities. [Paras 29-33]

Even assuming the applicant to be a second
wife, where her earlier marriage had dissolved
by death and no legal impediment existed on
her part, denial of maintenance would defeat
the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Respondent,
being a salaried government employee, was
held capable of maintaining the applicant.
[Paras 30-32]

Impugned order dismissing the maintenance
application set aside; matter remanded for fresh
decision. Interim maintenance of ₹8,000/- per
month directed to be paid to the applicant-wife
during pendency of proceedings. [Paras 34-36].

Revision allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Chanmuniya
v.
Virendra
Kumar
Singh
Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 - applied;
Kamala and Others v. M.R. Mohan Kumar,
AIR 2018 SC 5218 - relied on; Badshah v.
Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 -
followed; Ramesh Chandra Kaushal v.
Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 - referred;
Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1686 - relied on; Smt.
N.
Usha
Rani
v.
Moodudula Srinivas,
judgment dated 30.01.2025 (SC) - referred.

List of Acts / Statutes
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961;
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005.

List of Keywords
Maintenance; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Meaning of
wife;
Live-in
relationship;
Presumption
of
marriage;
Beneficial
interpretation;
Social
justice; Departmental inquiry admission; Hypertechnical approach; Interim maintenance.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 18.10.2023 passed
by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Court No.3, Deoria in Maintenance Case No. 551
of 2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionists: Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav; Sri
Prem Shankar
For the State: Learned Government Advocate
For Opposite Party No.2: Sri Kedar Nath
Mishra

## Text

_Characters 0–39,964 of 40,200. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39964 for what follows._

8 All. Madhu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1011
(2025) 8 ILRA 1011
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6354 of 2023

Madhu Yadav & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Ashok Kumar Yadav, Prem Shankar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Kedar Nath Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Whether the dismissal of an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the
applicant failed to strictly prove a valid marriage
was sustainable, when evidence on record
disclosed long cohabitation, admissions in
departmental inquiry, and circumstances raising
a presumption of marital relationship warranting
a beneficial and purposive interpretation of the
term "wife".

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.125
- Maintenance - Meaning of "wife" -
Live-in relationship - Presumption of
marriage - Beneficial construction -
Strict proof of marriage not mandatory -
Departmental
inquiry
admissions
-
Hyper-technical approach deprecated -
Interim maintenance - Remand.

Held:
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social welfare provision
intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution of
women and children. The expression "wife"
requires
a
broad
and
purposive
interpretation, and strict proof of a legally
valid marriage is not a sine qua non where
evidence indicates long cohabitation and holding
out as husband and wife. [Paras 16-20, 32]

Where parties lived together as husband and
wife for a considerable period, a presumption
in favour of marriage arises, rebuttable only
by cogent evidence. Admissions made by the
husband and his alleged first wife during a
departmental
inquiry,
acknowledging
solemnisation of marriage with the applicant,
constitute strong prima facie material supporting
such presumption. [Paras 25-29]

The Family Court erred in adopting a hypertechnical approach by insisting upon strict proof
of marriage, ignoring documentary evidence,
admissions in inquiry proceedings, and settled
law that maintenance claims cannot be defeated
on technicalities. [Paras 29-33]

Even assuming the applicant to be a second
wife, where her earlier marriage had dissolved
by death and no legal impediment existed on
her part, denial of maintenance would defeat
the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Respondent,
being a salaried government employee, was
held capable of maintaining the applicant.
[Paras 30-32]

Impugned order dismissing the maintenance
application set aside; matter remanded for fresh
decision. Interim maintenance of ₹8,000/- per
month directed to be paid to the applicant-wife
during pendency of proceedings. [Paras 34-36].

Revision allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Chanmuniya
v.
Virendra
Kumar
Singh
Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 - applied;
Kamala and Others v. M.R. Mohan Kumar,
AIR 2018 SC 5218 - relied on; Badshah v.
Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 -
followed; Ramesh Chandra Kaushal v.
Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 - referred;
Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1686 - relied on; Smt.
N.
Usha
Rani
v.
Moodudula Srinivas,
judgment dated 30.01.2025 (SC) - referred.

List of Acts / Statutes
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961;
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005.

List of Keywords
Maintenance; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Meaning of
wife;
Live-in
relationship;
Presumption
of
marriage;
Beneficial
interpretation;
Social
justice; Departmental inquiry admission; Hypertechnical approach; Interim maintenance.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 18.10.2023 passed
by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Court No.3, Deoria in Maintenance Case No. 551
of 2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionists: Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav; Sri
Prem Shankar
For the State: Learned Government Advocate
For Opposite Party No.2: Sri Kedar Nath
Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionists, learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Instant Criminal Revision has been
directed against the judgment order dated
18.10.2023 passed by learned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3,
Deoria in Maintenance Case No.551 of
2022, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Whereby
the application for maintenance filed by the
applicants have been dismissed. The
applicant No.1 Madhu Yadav claims
himself to be wife of opposite party Gaurav
Yadav and applicants No.2 and 3 are her
minor children born out of her wedlock
with previous husband Sriniwas.

3. The factual matrix of the case in
brief are that the applicants moved an
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Deoria dated 18.05.2022 with averments
that applicant No.1 Madhu Yadav was
initially married with Sriniwas, the elder
brother of opposite party No.2, from whom
she born two children namely Shiwangi
and Shrayansh who were minor at the time
of filing of maintenance application. The
applicant No.1 contracted second marriage
with her brother-in-law on 15.06.2020,
after death of her husband, according to
hindu rites and rituals. Her husband Gaurav
was posted in police department at
Azamgarh, and he took the applicants
alongwith
him
at
Azamgarh,
where
applicant No.1 lived with him alongwith
her children and performed her matrimonial
obligations. Her father had given sufficient
cash and valuables in her second marriage
with opposite party and his family
members. However, they were not satisfied
and started demanding Bullet Motorcycle,
in view of non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry they started harassing and beating
applicant No.1. She was subjected to
physical and mental cruelty by her second
husband and in-laws. Opposite party used
to threaten to contract remarriage with
some other woman; he even contracted
bigamous marriage with a girl namely
Sangeeta with the consent of his family
members. When she raised protest of
remarriage of her husband, she was kicked
out by opposite party and his family
members
alongwith
her
children
on
22.11.2021. She went back to her parental
home, she visited her husband's house
alongwith her brother at his residence at
Azamgarh, but he and his so called wife
turned her out from their residence. She
any how, went back to her parental house
after saving her life. A Panchayat was also
convened to reconcile the matter of
matrimonial discord, but of no avail.
8 All. Madhu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1013
Applicant is not a skilled woman, she is not
able to maintain herself and her minor
children. Her husband is posted as
Constable in U.P. Police, whose P.I.
No.152052445, he is posted at Police Line,
Azamgarh. He is able to maintain the
applicants. His monthly salary is around
Rs.70,000/- he also possesses agricultural
land, from which he earns Rs.2 lakh
annually.

4. The applicants prayed for providing
Rs.30,000/- as maintenance to applicant
No.1 and Rs.15,000/- to each of her minor
children. Learned court below issued
summon to opposite party Gaurav Yadav
who appeared and file his written statement
in the present case in which he admitted
that applicant No.1 was married with his
brother Sriniwas according to hindu rites
and rituals and two children, a daughter
Shiwangi and son Shreyansh were born out
of their wedlock. Sriniwas the elder brother
of opposite party died on 20.07.2017, on
being effected by Japanese Encephalitis at
Sahara Hospital, Lucknow and since then
applicant No.1 is leading a widowed life
alongwith her children. She is in possession
of the ancestral property, which is lying in
the share of his elder brother Sriniwas.
Opposite party never received applicant
No.1 as his wife and she was never
performed matrimonial obligations with
him. She was never married with the
opposite party, therefore, no question of
any demand or dowry, harassment or
torture arises. No Panchayat as alleged by
the applicant was ever convened. The
opposite party was married with Sangeeta
Yadav, daughter of Satish Yadav in the
year 2017 and since then Sangeeta Yadav is
cohabiting and lives with him as a wife. It
is wrong to say that he has contracted
second marriage with Sangeeta Yadav. He
got married only once and not twice as
alleged by applicant No.1. Applicant No.1
resides at his parental house in village
Karaundi, Police Station Rudrapur, District
Deoria and she was never turned out from
her matrimonial home. The opposite party
was
working
in
police
department,
therefore, on account of family settlement
he was entrusted the responsibility of
applicant No.1 and her children, which he
accepted on the ground of humanity. No
marriage ever took place between applicant
No.1 and opposite party, her children are
not
his
biological
offsprings.
The
applicants have no legal right to claim
maintenance from him. The applicant No.1
had moved an application before the higher
authorities for getting her name entered in
service book of opposite party. The alleged
marriage of opposite party and applicant
No.1 is void ab initio, because in hindu
law, remarriage in life time of spouse is not
permissible. Opposite party has filed an
application before the family court, Deoria
which is registered as Case No.205 of 2022
Gaurav Vs. Madhu Yadav for getting
decree of annulment of alleged marriage
dated 15.06.2020 with applicant No.1.

5.
With
above
averments
the
answering opposite party had prayed for
dismissing the application for maintenance.

5(a). It appears that proceedings
under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence
Act were also instituted by applicant No.1
against opposite party before the Court of
Magistrate in District Deoria, wherein
opposite party also appeared and file his
written statement on 02.11.2022. He denied
the factum of marriage with the applicant in
said
proceedings
also.
According
to
geneological
table
given
in
written
statement of opposite party in proceedings
under Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, the opposite party has four
1014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
brothers, out of whom Sriniwas died and
three brothers Vipin, Ramniwas and
Babloo are surviving.

6. The learned court below has framed
a point of determination to the effect that
whether applicant Madhu Yadav is legally
wedded wife of opposite party Gaurav and
she is entitled to seek maintenance for
herself and her minor children from Gaurav
Yadav.

7. Learned court below has considered
the evidence adduced by the applicant and
opposite party together with documentary
evidence
filed
by
them
and
after
appreciating oral evidence of PW-1 Madhu
Yadav and DW-1 Gaurav Yadav together
with the documents filed by the parties has
given a finding that this is obvious that
Madhu Yadav was married with Sriniwas
which is admitted to both sides, but her
second marriage with opposite party is not
duly proved for want of sufficient evidence.
No witness has been adduced by her, in
support of her alleged marriage with
opposite
party.
Opposite
party
has
categorically denied to have ever married
with the applicant. Applicant No.1 has
admitted that what ever property was lying
in the share of Sriniwas came to his
children Shiwangi and Shreyansh. No
evidence could be adduced in support of
the contention of the applicants that
marriage of applicant No.1 and opposite
party was solemnized on 15.06.2020
according to hindu rites and rituals.
Therefore, applicant No.1 Madhu Yadav
had failed to prove her assertion that she
was married with opposite party Gaurav
according to hindu rites and rituals.

8. With above findings, learned court
below has concluded in the impugned
judgment that in view of finding of issue
No.1, it is obvious that neither applicant
No.1 is legally wedded wife of opposite
party nor her children are his offsprings.
This is admitted fact that applicant No.2
and 3 are biological children of Sriniwas,
the deceased elder brother of opposite
party.

9. Learned trial court has dismissed
the maintenance petition filed by the
applicants with above observations and
finding.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist
submitted
that
impugned
judgment and order passed by learned court
below is against the strength of evidence on
record and suffers from illegality. Learned
court below has dismissed the maintenance
petition filed by the applicants in cursory
manner, without appreciating the evidence
on record in proper perspective.

10. The learned court below has oversighted the admission of opposite party that
he accepted the responsibility of applicant
No.1 and her children born out of her
wedlock with Sriniwas, on asking of his
family members. In fact, he contracted
remarriage with applicant No.1 after death
of
her
husband
Sriniwas
who
was
admittedly elder bother of opposite party.
He had also adopted his children as his own
and contracted marriage with applicant
No.1. Applicant No.1 substituted the name
of her previous husband Sriniwas by
opposite party Gaurav Yadav, in her
Aadhar Card, Caste Certificate, Bank
Account and opening form and residential
certificate issued on 10.10.2021, which
indicate that revisionist is a valid spouse of
opposite party No.2. They live and
cohabited together after marriage for long
time.
Revisionist
No.1
had
filed
a
complaint on 07.02.2022 against opposite
8 All. Madhu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1015
party
Gaurav
Yadav,
before
DIG
Azamgarh
regarding
his
bigamous
marriage with Sangeeta Yadav, on which
DIG, Azamgarh Range instituted an inquiry
in the matter. Police Circle Officer,
conducted the inquiry and submitted his
report
before
S.S.P.,
Azamgarh
on
20.03.2022 which reflects that the inquiry
officer found opposite party Gaurav Yadav
being guilty of bigamous marriage, in said
inquiry opposite party and his second wife
Sangeeta Yadav, admitted the fact that
opposite party was married with Madhu
Yadav. On the basis of documentary
evidence at the admission stage it is proved
that after the death of Sriniwas his
widowed wife got married with Gaurav
Yadav her brother-in-law and lived with
him as his spouse. Inasmuch as opposite
party admitted the factum of marriage with
Madhu Yadav in implicit manner in
departmental inquiry which reflects from
his statement recorded before the Circle
Officer, Sadar, Azamgarh.

11. He lastly submitted that this is trite
law, that when the man and woman lived
together has husband and wife for longtime
a presumption is raised, they are legally
married couple and this is sufficient for
claim of maintenance by a wife under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.. The maintenance claim
made by his wife or children should not be
frustrated by adopting hyper technical
approach, because this is a beneficial
legislation providing maintenance for wife,
minor children an old and infirm parents. He
also submitted that Sangeeta Yadav who
holds out as wife of opposite party was
married with Ranjeeet Yadav, who is his
legally wedded wife and she has purchased a
vehicle Bolero Car bearing Registration No.
UP50BW0497 in which name of registered
owner is shown as Sangeeta Yadav wife of
Ranjeet Yadav.

12. The concerned village Pradhan has
also issue a certificate on 29.01.2022 to the
effect that Madhu Yadav was married with
Gaurav Yadav on 15.06.2020. Applicant
no.1 lodged an FIR vide Case Crime No.17
of 2022, under Section 323, 494, 498A IPC
against opposite party with allegation of
matrimonial
cruelty,
causing
physical
assault and contracting remarriage with
another woman.

13. With above submissions, learned
counsel
prayed
for
setting-aside
the
impugned judgment and order providing
maintenance to the revisionist.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 submitted that learned
trial court has rightly given a finding that
on the basis of evidence adduced by the
parties, the factum of marriage of applicant
No.1 with respondent No.2 is not proved.
This is admitted fact that revisionist Nos.2
and 3 were born out of wedlock of
revisionist No.1 with her previous husband
Sriniwas.
They
are
admittedly
not
biological children of opposite party No.2.
Therefore, he is neither under obligation to
pay maintenance to applicant No.1 nor her
children. It is wrong to say that respondent
No.2 had adopted her children as his own.
He had undertaken responsibility of the
revisionist to look after them on persuasion
of
family
members
on
humanitarian
consideration and only for that reason he
cannot be saddled with legal responsibility
to maintain them. The revisionist No.1 has
filed several legal proceedings against him
only to harass him. Revisionist No.1 is
already in possession of the ancestral
property lying to the share of her deceased
husband Sriniwas, his father is alive. This
is wrong to say that revisionist No.1 was
ever restrained by his family members to
stay in the home. Revisionist No.1 was
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
residing at his family residence as widowed
wife of his elder brother. The respondent
No.2 has filed a suit for annulment and
marriage against Madhu Yadav only to
avoid legal complications created by him,
otherwise no marriage ever took place
between them.

15. I have gone through the lower
court record as well as record of present
revision in the light of submissions made
by learned counsel for the contesting
parties.

16. Learned counsel for the revisionist
placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Chanmuniya Vs.
Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and
another (2011) 1 SCC 141, wherein
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a matter under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. observed as under:-

" 33.We are inclined to take a
broad view of the definition of `wife'
having regard to the social object of
Section 125 in the Code of 1973. However,
sitting in a two-Judge Bench, we cannot,
we are afraid, take a view contrary to the
views expressed in the abovementioned
two cases.

46.We are of the opinion that a
broad and expansive interpretation should
be given to the term `wife' to include even
those cases where a man and woman have
been living together as husband and wife
for a reasonably long period of time, and
strict proof of marriage should not be a
pre-condition for maintenance under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, so as to fulfil
the true spirit and essence of the
beneficial provision of maintenance under
Section

47.We also believe that such an
interpretation would be a just application
of
the principles
enshrined
in
the
Preamble to our Constitution, namely,
social justice and upholding the dignity of
the individual."

17. In another judgment Kamala and
others Vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar AIR
2018 SC 5218 Hon'ble Court observed as
under:-

16. It is fairly well settled that the
law presumes in favour of marriage and
against concubinage when a man and
woman have cohabited continuously for a
number of years. After referring to various
judgments, in Chanmuniya v. Virendra
Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141,
this Court held as under:-

"11. Again, in Sastry Velaider
Aronegary v. Sembecutty Vaigalie (1881) 6
AC 364, it was held that where a man and
woman are proved to have lived together as
man and wife, the law will presume, unless
the contrary is clearly proved, that they
were living together in consequence of a
valid marriage, and not in a state of
concubinage.

12. In India, the same principles
have been followed in Andrahennedige
Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige
Balahamy AIR 1927 PC 185, in which the
Privy Council laid down the general
proposition that where a man and woman
are proved to have lived together as man
and wife, the law will presume, unless, the
contrary is clearly proved, that they were
living together in consequence of a valid
marriage,
and
not
in
a
state
of
concubinage.
8 All. Madhu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1017

13. In Mohabbat Ali Khan v.
Mohd. Ibrahim Khan AIR 1929 PC 135 the
Privy Council has laid down that the law
presumes in favour of marriage and
against concubinage when a man and
woman have cohabited continuously for
number of years.

14. In Gokal Chand v. Parvin
Kumari AIR 1952 SC 231, this Court held
that continuous cohabitation of man and
woman as husband and wife may raise the
presumption
of
marriage,
but
the
presumption which may be drawn from
long cohabitation is rebuttable and if there
are circumstances which weaken and
destroy that presumption, the Court cannot
ignore them.

15. Further, in Badri Prasad v.
Director of Consolidation (1978) 3 SCC
527, the Supreme Court held that a strong
presumption arises in favour of wedlock
where the partners have lived together for
a long spell as husband and wife. Although
the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy
burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the
relationship of legal origin.

16. Again, in Tulsa v. Durghatiya
(2008) 4 SCC 520, this Court held that
where the partners lived together for a long
spell as husband and wife, a presumption
would arise in favour of a valid wedlock."
This Court in Chanmuniya case further
held as under:-

"24. Thus, in those cases where a
man, who lived with a woman for a long
time and even though they may not have
undergone legal necessities of a valid
marriage, should be made liable to pay the
woman maintenance if he deserts her. The
man should not be allowed to benefit from
the legal loopholes by enjoying the
advantages of a de facto marriage without
undertaking the duties and obligations. Any
other interpretation would lead the woman
to vagrancy and destitution, which the
provision of maintenance in Section 125 is
meant to prevent."

18. In another judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in respect of matter in issue
in present case Smt. N. Usha Rani and
another Vs. Moodudula Srinivas in
Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No. 7660 of 2017, wherein vide
judgment dated 30.01.2025 the Apex Court
considered
its
earlier
judgment
Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga Vs.
Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga (2005)
2 SCC 33 ; Chanmuniya vs. Virendra
Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another
(2011) 1 SCC 141; Savitaben Somabhai
Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat and others
(2005) 3 SCC 636 ; Captain Ramesh
Chander Kaushal vs. Veena Kaushal and
Others (1978) 4 SCC 70; Vimala (K) vs.
Veeraswamy (K) (1991) 2 SCC 375;
Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava
Dixit and Another (1999) 7 SCC 675;
Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao
Shivram Adhav and Another (1988) 1 SCC
530; Bakulabai and Another vs. Gangaram
and Another (1988) 1 SCC 537. Hon'ble
Court held that this diversion in judicial
opinion has also been noted by Apex Court
in Chammuniya (supra) and therefore, the
question of whether women in livein
relationship can claim maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. was referred to larger
bench.

19. Hon'ble Court in Smt. N. Usha
Rani (supra) reproduced paragraph 24 and
24 as follows:-

"24. Thus, in those cases where a
man, who lived with a woman for a long
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
time and even though they may not have
undergone legal necessities of a valid
marriage, should be made liable to pay the
woman maintenance if he deserts her. The
man should not be allowed to benefit from
the legal loopholes by enjoying the
advantages of a de facto marriage without
undertaking the duties and obligations. Any
other interpretation would lead the woman
to vagrancy and destitution, which the
provision of maintenance in Section 125 is
meant to prevent.

25. The Committee on Reforms of
Criminal Justice System, headed by Dr.
Justice V.S. Malimath, in its Report of 2003
opined that evidence regarding a man and
woman living together for a reasonably
long period should be sufficient to draw the
presumption
that
the
marriage
was
performed according to the customary rites
of the parties. Thus, it recommended that
the word "wife" in Section 125 CrPC
should be amended to include a woman
who was living with the man like his wife
for a reasonably long period..."

20. Hon'ble Court further observed as
under:-

16. Most recently, in Badshah vs.
Urmila Badshah Godse and Another (2014)
1 SCC 188, this Court granted maintenance
to a second wife who was kept in the dark
about
her
husband's
first
subsisting
marriage. The Court noted:

"13.3. Thirdly, in such cases,
purposive interpretation needs to be given
to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC.
While dealing with the application of a
destitute wife or hapless children or parents
under this provision, the Court is dealing
with the marginalised sections of the
society. The purpose is to achieve "social
justice" which is the constitutional vision,
enshrined
in
the
Preamble
of
the
Constitution of India. The Preamble to the
Constitution of India clearly signals that we
have chosen the democratic path under the
rule of law to achieve the goal of securing
for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality
and fraternity. It specifically highlights
achieving their social justice. Therefore, it
becomes the bounden duty of the courts to
advance the cause of social justice. While
giving
interpretation
to
a
particular
provision, the court is supposed to bridge
the gap between the law and society."

18. In the opinion of this Court,
when the social justice objective of
maintenance u/s. 125CrPC is considered
against
the
particular
facts
and
circumstances of this case, we cannot, in
good conscience, deny maintenance to
Appellant No. 1. It is settled law that social
welfare provisions must be subjected to an
expansive and beneficial construction and
this understanding has been extended to
maintenance
since
Ramesh
Chander
(supra). An alternate interpretation would
not only explicitly defeat the purpose of the
provision by permitting vagrancy and
destitution, but would also give legal
sanction to the actions of the Respondent in
knowingly entering into a marriage with
Appellant No.1, availing its privileges but
escaping
its
consequent
duties
and
obligations. The only conceivable mischief
that could arise in permitting a beneficial
interpretation is that the Appellant No.1
could claim dual maintenance--however,
that is not the case under the present facts.
We are aware that this Court has
previously denied maintenance in cases of
subsisting
marriages
(See
Yamunabai
(supra) and Bakulabai (supra)). However,
a plea of separation from the first marriage
was not made in those cases and hence,
8 All. Madhu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1019
they are factually distinguishable. It must
be borne in mind that the right to
maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC is not a benefit
received by a wife but rather a legal and
moral duty owed by the husband. A recent
landmark judgement of this Court in Mohd.
Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana and
Another (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1686 has
shed greater light on this duty in the Indian
context:

"43. In this context, I would like
to advert to the vulnerability of married
women in India who do not have an
independent source of income or who do
not have access to monetary resources in
their households particularly for their
personal expenses. In Indian society, it is
an established practice that once a
daughter is married, she resides with her
husband and/or his family unless due to
exigency of career or such other reason she
has to reside elsewhere. In the case of a
woman who has an independent source of
income, she may be financially endowed
and may not be totally dependent on her
husband and his family. But what is the
position of a married woman who is often
referred to as a "homemaker" and who
does not have an independent source of
income,
whatsoever,
and
is
totally
dependent for her financial resources on
her husband and on his family? It is wellknown that such an Indian homemaker tries
to save as much money as possible from the
monthly household budget, not only to
augment the financial resources of the
family but possibly to also save a small
portion for her personal expenses. Such a
practice is followed in order to avoid
making a request to the husband or his
family for her personal expenses. Most
married men in India do not realise this
aspect of the predicament such Indian
homemakers face as any request made for
expenses may be bluntly turned down by
the husband and/or his family. Some
husbands are not conscious of the fact that
the wife who has no independent source of
finance is dependent on them not only
emotionally but also financially. On the
other hand, a wife who is referred to as a
homemaker is working throughout the day
for the welfare of the family without
expecting
anything
in
return
except
possibly love and affection, a sense of
comfort and respect from her husband and
his family which are towards her emotional
security. This may also be lacking in
certain households.

21. On perusal of evidence adduced by
the parties, it appears that respondent No.2
has denied the factum of marriage asserted
by the revisionist No.1 with him, he
categorically denied in his sworn testimony
before the court below that on 15.06.2020
no marriage between Madhu and him took
place according to hindu rites and rituals.
In fact she was married with his elder
brother Sriniwas who died in the year 2017
and Madhu is in possession of property of
Sriniwas. In ancestral house at Karaundi,
Police Station Rudrapur, Madhu is in
possession of the share of his brother. She
was never turned out from his ancestral
home. She was never harassed or tortured,
he never contracted second marriage with
Madhu. She is studied up to B.A. Madhu
and her children have received maintenance
from the property of his brother. He was
married with Sangeeta according to hindu
rites and rituals and blessed with two
children from her. This marriage took place
on 07.05.2017, he works in U.P. Police, he
bears responsibility of maintaining his
parents, wife and two children and ailing
brother whose kidney has become disfunctional. He has taken Rs. 9 lakh as loan
from Bank. Thus, half of his salary is
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deducted for repayment of loan. Madhu has
wrongly got his name entered in her
Aadhar Card. The agricultural land is lying
in the name of his father, which is
cultivated by his elder brother Ram Niwas.
Chargesheet has been filed case under
Section 498A IPC, he has assailed the
chargesheet before the High Court, he was
also challaned under Section 146 Cr.P.C.
by the police due to his verbal altercation
with Madhu, at Police Station. He had
never moved any application before B.D.O.
Rudrapur for getting name of Sangeeta
Yadav entered in records. He was not
aware that Sangeeta Yadav was previously
married with Ranjeet, he is not aware that
Sangeeta Yadav has stated in her statement
in inquiry that she was married with
Ranjeet and from whom she has not taken
divorce. He is not aware that in inquiry
conducted by Senior Police Officer is
against him. He admitted that he got
married with Madhu Yadav after the death
of his brother. This wrong to say that
Madhu is his wife, his net monthly salary is
Rs.32,000/-The departmental inquiry was
conducted against him on complainant of
Madhu.

22. PW-1 Madhu Yadav has stated in
her statement before the Court that her
husband Sriniwas died on 19.07.2017, and
thereafter she contracted marriage with
Gaurav who was his brother-in-law on
15.06.2020 with consent of both families.
She was harassed by Gaurav and his family
members after marriage with him for nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and
ultimately she was turned out from her
matrimonial home on 22.11.2022 after
giving her beating. Her stridhan has been
grabbed by
Gaurav
and his
family
members.
Gaurav
solemnized
second
marriage with Sangeeta, she came to know
this fact when she went to Azamgarh,
Sangeeta is also resident of Azamgarh. She
has studied up to Class-8th only, all her
relatives assembled in her second marriage
with Gaurav. She can produce them as
witness of her marriage with Gaurav was
solemnized with seven rounds ceremony.
Gaurav undertook the responsibility of her
children at the time of her marriage. In
lower court record, a copy of the sale deed
dated 12.05.2020 is attached which reveals
that Sangeeta Yadav the wife of Gaurav
purchased a plot from its previous owner
Bharat Bhushan Pandey for Rs.5,85,000/-.
The area of the land is 96.87 Sq. mts.,
which is non-agricultural in nature and
situates at Jafarpur, District Azamgarh.
Sangeeta Yadav has shown herself as wife
of Ranjeet Yadav in this sale deed and not
as wife of Gaurav Yadav.

23. Revisionist has filed affidavit of
disclosure of assets and liabilities before
the court below on 18.05.2022, in which
she has not shown any income of her own.
She has shown two minor children being
dependent on her. She has shown her
qualification as graduation. Sangeet Yadav
who claims to be a wife of respondent No.2
has filed an affidavit before the court below
on 17.04.2023, in which she has stated that
she solemnized marriage with opposite
party Gaurav on 07.05.2017 in Vandevi
temple and since then she has been living
as his wife.

24. It is further stated by the
respondent No.2 that Madhu Yadav was
never married with Gaurav Yadav, she is
rightful owner of the property left behind
her
husband
Sriniwas
alongwtih her
children. In Kutumb Register, revisionist
Madhu Yadav is shown as wife of
Sriniwas, who died on 20.06.2017. In
ration card dated 21.08.2018 she is shown
as wife of Sriniwas. However, the case of
8 All. Madhu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1021
revisionist is that she contracted second
marriage with Gaurav in the year 2020.
Revisionist has also filed some photographs
in support of her version that she was
married with Gaurav, which is annexed as
Ext. 17 Kha/17 in lower court court record.

25. An inquiry was conducted by the
Circle Officer, Police District Azamgarh,
on the complaint of revisionist No.1. Ms.
Saumya Singh Circle
Officer,
Sadar
Azargarh who recorded statements of
Madhu Yadav wife of Constable Gaurav
Yadav, Constable Gaurav Yadav, Sangeeta
Yadav wife of Gaurav Yadav. Revisionist
Madhu Yadav stated in said inquiry that
after
being
thrown
out
from
her
matrimonial home she resides in a rented
house at Sidhari, District Azamgarh, her
husband Gaurav often states to landlord
Ballu Sonkar, that he would not pay the
rent. Gaurav contracted second marriage
with Sangeeta Yadav in the year 2021, who
is resident of Chaffarpur, District Azamgar.
She is suffering from acute financial crisis.

26. Constable Gaurav Yadav has
stated in the inquiry that he solemnized
marriage with Sangeeta Yadav in the year
2017 with consent of her parents and would
stay with her at pvt. quarter. He contracted
second marriage with Madhu Yadav with
consent of his wife Sangeet Yadav and
family members of Madhu Yadav, every
thing was fine up to June, 2020 to
December 2021. Thereafter at the instance
of SHO Mahila Thana a compromise
arrived at between him and his wifes
Madhu
Yadav
and
Sangeeta
Yadav,
wherein it was agreed that he would pay
Rs.8,000/- to Madhu Yadav and Rs.7,000/-
to Sangeeta Yadav for their expenses.

27. It is difficult for him to pay
Rs.8,000/- as maintenance to Madhu
Yadav, as she has filed several cases
against him. Sangeeta Yadav has also
stated in the inquiry that she was married
with Gaurav in the year 2017 and on
15.06.2020
second
marriage
was
solemnized between Madhu and Gaurav
with consent of both the family members,
but due to harsh and abusive attitude of
Madhu Yadav, the spouse got separated.
She also stated that she was married with
Ranjeet Yadav in the year 2009, but the
said marriage was dissolved in the year
2014 on the basis of compromise, she got
separated from her husband, but divorce
has not taken place between them.

28. On the basis of above statements
of the parties, the inquiry officer concluded
that Gaurav Yadav being a Government
Servant contracted second marriage with
the
complainant
Madhu Yadav
with
consent of her parents on 15.06.2020 at his
parental place village Karaundi, Police
Station Rudrapur, District Deoria. Thus, he
is guilty of bigamy. This conclusion of
Inquiry Officer has been communicated by
S.P. Azamgarh to DIG Azamgarh Bench
vide letter dated 01.04.2022.

29. On the basis of statements given
by the parties in departmental inquiry
against respondent No.2 on complaint of
revisionist, this fact is prima facie proved
that respondent No.2 contracted second
marriage with revisionist No.1 in the year
2020, with the consent of both the families.
This fact is also prima facie proved that
prior to second marriage with revisionist
No.1, respondent No.2 was married with
one Sangeeta Yadav and revisionist Nos. 2
and 3 are offsprings of previous husband of
Madhu Yadav. Therefore, the finding of
lower court that this fact is not proved that
applicant Madhu Yadav is legally wedded
wife of opposite party and she is not
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
entitled to seek maintenance from him
cannot be countenanced. Learned trial court
has taken a hyper technical approach while
rejecting the claim of maintenance raised
by applicant No.1 Madhu Yadav. This is
admitted case that revisionist No.1 is not
employed any where, even if, it is assumed
that she is in possession of the ancestral
property of her previous husband Sriniwas,
on account of his death, it cannot be
assumed
that
it
is
sufficient
for
maintenance of the applicants.

30. This fact is also noticeable that
even if it is assumed that the revisionist
No.1 is second wife of the respondent
No.2. Keeping in view admission of his
wife Sangeeta that no decree of divorce
was passed in respect of her earlier
marriage with Ranjeet. On the other hand
there was no legal impediment in the
marriage between revisionist No.1 and
respondent No.2, previous husband of the
revisionist
No.1
had
already
died.
Therefore, claim of the revisionist No.1 as
wife of the respondent No.2 lies on higher
footing than that of said Sangeeta Yadav.

31. On the other hand, respondent
No.2 is employed in police department as
Constable. He is possessed of sufficient
income to maintain the applicant No.1 who
is bearing responsibility of her two minor
children also born out of her wedlock with
Sriniwas.

32. Adverting to the dicta of Hon'ble
Supreme court in Chanmuniya (supra) it can
be held that a very broad and expansive
interpretation is required to be given to term
'wife' for maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C. so as to include those cases where a
man and woman have been living together as
husband and wife a reasonable long period of
time, and strict proof of marriage should not
be a precondition for maintenance in such
cases. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order is not sustainable.

33. Learned court below has committed
legal and factual error while dismissing the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the
technical ground that factum of marriage of
applicant No.1 and opposite party is not duly
proved.

34. Consequently, the impugned judgment
and order dated 18.10.2023 passed by learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.3,
Deoria is set-aside and matter is remitted to
court below for decision afresh in light of
observations made herein above treating the
revisionist as wife of the respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 shall pay Rs.8,000/- as
interim monthly maintenance to applicant No.1
during the pendency of the maintenance case
from today which stands restored on the
strength of this revisional order.

35. Let record of learned court below be
transmitted with a copy of this judgment for
further proceedings.

36. The revision stands allowed,
accordingly with above observations.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 1022
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.08.2025

BEFORE