Court rules that a man cannot deny maintenance by deceiving a woman about his marital status; long cohabitation and child birth suffice to presume marriage under Section 144 BNSS and Section 125 Cr.P.C.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 21, 2026, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice Sunder Mohan, upheld the Family Court's order granting maintenance to a woman and her minor child under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Court emphasized that strict proof of a valid marriage is not essential to claim maintenance, especially when a long and continuous relationship and the birth of a child establish a presumption of marriage.
The case arose from a petition filed by the first respondent (woman) claiming maintenance from the petitioner, G. Ra. Gokul, who had initially introduced himself as divorced and induced the woman into a relationship on this representation. The petitioner later denied that a valid marriage existed, contending that he was already married and the respondent knew it, thus barring her from maintenance rights.
The Family Court had awarded Rs. 1,00,000 per month as maintenance to the woman and Rs. 1,50,000 per month to the minor child, considering the petitioner's monthly income of around Rs. 10 lakhs. The petitioner challenged this order through a criminal revision, arguing that the woman failed to establish the legality of the marriage and had independent means, including valuable property and luxury cars.
Rejecting the petitioner's arguments, the Madras High Court noted that the petitioner did not produce evidence to rebut the respondent's version that he had represented himself as divorced and misled her into the relationship. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's precedents, including Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014), which held that a husband cannot take advantage of his own wrong by denying maintenance after duping the second wife about his marital status.
Further, the Court clarified that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are social justice measures aimed at preventing destitution of women and children. Therefore, strict proof of marriage, as required in bigamy prosecutions, is not necessary. The continuous cohabitation, the birth certificate of the child naming the petitioner as the father, Aadhaar cards showing the petitioner as husband/father, and photographs of the couple living together were sufficient to presume marriage.
The Court also dismissed the petitioner's claim that the respondent's ownership of property and cars disqualified her from maintenance, observing that the respondent had no regular income after the birth of the child and the maintenance amount was reasonable given the petitioner's financial status.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court confirmed the Family Court's order, reinforcing the principle that the law protects women and children from exploitation and destitution, and that deception by a husband cannot be used to evade maintenance obligations.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance under Section 144 BNSS / Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Woman who was induced into relationship by representation that man had divorced his first wife, and who proved long cohabitation and birth of child, cannot be denied maintenance merely for want of strict proof of valid marriage - Husband cannot take advantage of his own wrong - For maintenance proceedings, strict proof of marriage is not essential; long and continuous relationship can justify presumption of marriage.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 144 BNSS 2023, Section 125 Cr.P.C.
G.Ra.Gokul v. Aishwariya.S, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2991133
