The right of a wife to claim maintenance is a cornerstone of Indian family law, enshrined in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 [Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)]. This provision reflects the principle that no individual, especially women and children, should suffer destitution due to marital neglect. Yet, the interpretation of this right often intersects with complex issues of matrimonial law, including questions relating to void and voidable marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
In Sweta Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another (Criminal Revision No. 3893 of 2017), the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla, delivered a significant ruling on 24 September 2025.
The Court clarified that the wife’s right to maintenance cannot be denied merely on the ground that the marriage may be voidable. Unless a competent court formally declares the marriage null and void, the wife continues to enjoy her legal status as a spouse and is entitled to claim maintenance.
This judgment not only reaffirms the protective ambit of Section 125 CrPC but also strengthens women’s rights by ensuring that technicalities of matrimonial law cannot be used to defeat substantive claims of survival and dignity.
Factual Background
The revisionist, Sweta Jaiswal, had filed a maintenance petition (No. 332 of 2015) before the Family Court, Chandauli, under Section 125 CrPC. She sought maintenance for herself and her minor daughter from her husband, Santosh Jaiswal (opposite party no. 2).
Family Court’s Order (2 November 2017):
- The Principal Judge allowed maintenance of ₹2,000 per month only for the minor daughter.
- The wife’s claim was rejected because she was allegedly living separately without sufficient reason, thereby disentitling her under Section 125(4) CrPC.
The Court noted that the husband had concealed his previous marriage and divorce. The Family Court treated this concealment as sufficient to conclude that the wife was willfully avoiding her marital obligations, thereby disentitling her from maintenance.
Aggrieved, Sweta Jaiswal filed a criminal revision before the Allahabad High Court.
Issues
The case presented two major legal questions:
- Whether a wife can be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on the ground that her marriage is voidable under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Whether concealment of a husband’s previous marriage and divorce constitutes a valid ground to conclude that the wife is living separately without reasonable cause under Section 125(4) CrPC.
Court’s Observations
1. On the Misapplication of Section 125(4) CrPC
Section 125(4) bars maintenance if the wife is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or is living separately by mutual consent. The Family Court had wrongly inferred from the pleadings that the wife was avoiding her marital duties.
The High Court emphasised that:
- A mere passing reference to concealment of a previous marriage cannot justify a finding that the wife was willfully living separately without cause.
- The allegations of cruelty and dowry demand were sufficient to show that she had reasonable cause to live separately.
2. On Voidable Marriages and Section 12(1)(c) HMA
The Family Court had invoked Section 12(1)(c), which allows annulment if consent for marriage is obtained by fraud or concealment of material facts. It held that since the marriage was voidable, the wife was not entitled to maintenance.
The High Court rejected this reasoning:
- Voidable marriage persists unless annulled. Until a decree of nullity is passed, the marital tie remains intact, and the wife retains all associated rights.
- Denial of maintenance based on a hypothetical annulment is both “perverse and patently illegal.”
3. Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The Court referred to Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025 SCC OnLine SC 299), where the Supreme Court held:
- A spouse whose marriage has been declared void is still entitled to seek alimony or maintenance under Section 25 HMA.
- Even if a marriage is prima facie void or voidable, courts may grant maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 HMA.
This precedent reinforced that maintenance is a matter of sustenance and survival, not merely dependent on the technical validity of the marriage.
Court’s Decision
- The finding of the Family Court that the wife was disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) was declared illegal and unsustainable.
- The High Court set aside the order refusing maintenance to the wife.
- The matter was remanded to the Family Court, Chandauli, directing it to pass a fresh order on the wife’s maintenance claim in light of the High Court’s observations.
- Maintenance already granted to the minor daughter remained undisturbed.
Legal Analysis
1. Distinction Between Void and Voidable Marriages
Void marriages (Section 11 HMA): Non-existent in law from inception (e.g., bigamy, prohibited relationships).
Voidable marriages (Section 12 HMA): Valid until annulled by decree (e.g., fraud, concealment, unsoundness of mind).
The High Court underscored that the wife’s marriage was, at worst, voidable—not void. Therefore, her legal status as a wife continued, entitling her to maintenance.
2. Scope of Section 125 CrPC
Section 125 CrPC is a social justice measure aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution. Courts have consistently held that its scope must be interpreted liberally to uphold the dignity of women. The Allahabad HC reinforced this view, cautioning Family Courts against technical denials.
3. Protection Against Misuse of Section 125(4)
The Family Court had misapplied Section 125(4) by concluding that the wife had deserted her husband without cause. The High Court clarified that dowry-related cruelty constituted a reasonable cause for separation, thus keeping her claim valid.
Broader Implications of the Judgment
Strengthening Women’s Rights: The decision ensures that women are not left destitute merely because their marriage is technically voidable. It prioritises sustenance over formality.
Judicial Consistency with Supreme Court: By aligning with Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, the High Court maintained consistency in jurisprudence regarding maintenance rights.
Guidance for Family Courts: The ruling cautions lower courts against overreliance on hypothetical annulment scenarios and emphasises examining the current legal status of the marriage.
Conclusion
Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Sweta Jaiswal v. State of U.P. is a landmark in clarifying the independent nature of a wife’s right to maintenance. By holding that maintenance cannot be denied on the speculative ground that the marriage is voidable, the Court protected the fundamental purpose of Section 125 CrPC: to prevent destitution and uphold human dignity.
This judgment is particularly significant in a society where women may face deception, cruelty, or concealment of facts in marital arrangements. It reinforces that until a marriage is annulled by a competent court, the wife’s rights flow unimpeded. The ruling thus fortifies the social welfare intent of maintenance laws, ensuring that legal technicalities do not obstruct substantive justice.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams