Introduction:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant judgment reaffirming that the beneficial object of maintenance laws cannot be defeated merely because a marriage is subsequently found to be legally invalid, particularly where the woman entered into the relationship after being deceived by the man regarding his religious identity. In P v. G (CRR-4518-2023), reported as 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 243, Justice Gajendra Singh set aside a Family Court’s refusal to grant maintenance to a woman who had married a man after he allegedly concealed his religious identity and represented himself as a Hindu. The High Court held that denying maintenance in such circumstances would amount to further victimising a woman who had already suffered deception and abuse.

The case arose from a criminal revision petition challenging the Family Court’s judgment, which had rejected the woman’s claim for maintenance on the ground that she was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent. While the Family Court declined maintenance to the woman, it accepted the paternity of the minor child born from the relationship and awarded the daughter maintenance of ₹2,000 per month. Dissatisfied with the denial of her own claim and the inadequate amount awarded to the child, the woman approached the High Court seeking appropriate relief.

According to the facts placed before the Court, the petitioner solemnised her marriage with the respondent on December 8, 2022, following Hindu customs and ceremonies. She asserted that throughout the marriage negotiations and solemnisation, the respondent projected himself as a Hindu and deliberately concealed that he actually belonged to the Bohra community. Believing his representations, she entered into the marriage in good faith. During the subsistence of their relationship, the couple was blessed with a daughter.

The petitioner later claimed that she discovered the respondent’s actual religious identity only after seeing his Aadhaar card. According to her, this revelation completely changed the nature of their relationship. She further alleged that after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty, repeatedly pressured to convert to the Bohra faith, physically assaulted when she refused to do so, and threatened with dire consequences. She also alleged that the respondent threatened to kill her parents and commit suicide to intimidate her. Eventually, she lodged a police complaint regarding these incidents.

The petitioner further alleged that even after the relationship had deteriorated, the respondent attempted to abduct her while she was visiting a Shiva Temple and threatened members of the temple priest’s family. Despite notice issued by the High Court during the revision proceedings, the respondent chose not to appear before the Court.

Against this factual backdrop, the High Court was called upon to determine whether the invalidity of the marriage could, by itself, defeat the petitioner’s claim for maintenance despite the undisputed circumstances under which the relationship had been entered into.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner contended that the Family Court had committed a grave legal error by rejecting her claim solely because the marriage was ultimately found not to be legally valid. She argued that the invalidity of the marriage was itself the consequence of the respondent’s fraudulent conduct in concealing his true religious identity and falsely presenting himself as a Hindu at the time of marriage.

According to the petitioner, she had entered into the marital relationship in complete good faith after participating in Hindu marriage ceremonies and genuinely believing that the respondent belonged to the Hindu faith. She submitted that the deception practised upon her could not subsequently be used by the respondent as a shield to escape his legal responsibility to maintain her.

The petitioner further highlighted that the relationship had resulted in the birth of a daughter, whose paternity had never been disputed. She argued that the existence of the child demonstrated the bona fide nature of the relationship and further established that she had accepted the respondent as her lawful husband.

She also placed reliance upon the allegations of cruelty committed by the respondent after the marriage. According to her, once she discovered his true religious identity, the respondent subjected her to mental and physical harassment, compelled her to embrace the Bohra religion against her wishes, assaulted her upon her refusal, and threatened both her and her family members. She submitted that these circumstances clearly established that she had been a victim of deception and abuse rather than a willing participant in any irregular relationship.

The petitioner also challenged the quantum of maintenance awarded to her minor daughter. She argued that ₹2,000 per month was wholly inadequate in contemporary circumstances and insufficient to meet the child’s educational, medical, nutritional, and other day-to-day expenses.

Significantly, despite service of notice, the respondent remained absent before the High Court and did not contest the allegations or defend the Family Court’s judgment. Consequently, the High Court proceeded to examine the legality of the Family Court’s findings on the basis of the available material and the record of the case.

Court’s Judgment:

Allowing the criminal revision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the Family Court had committed a serious legal error in rejecting the petitioner’s maintenance claim solely because the marriage was not legally valid. Justice Gajendra Singh observed that such an approach ignored the peculiar facts of the case and defeated the very object of maintenance law.

The Court noted that it was undisputed that the parties had undergone marriage ceremonies according to Hindu customs. More importantly, the petitioner had participated in those ceremonies while genuinely believing that the respondent was a Hindu, a belief created by the respondent’s own concealment of his actual religious identity. The relationship was therefore entered into on the basis of deception rather than with knowledge of any legal impediment.

The High Court further observed that the relationship had resulted in the birth of a daughter, whose paternity was accepted even by the Family Court. The existence of the child clearly demonstrated that the relationship was not casual or temporary but one in which the petitioner had honestly accepted the respondent as her husband.

Justice Gajendra Singh strongly disagreed with the reasoning adopted by the Family Court. The Court observed that merely because the marriage was legally invalid could not automatically disentitle the petitioner from claiming maintenance when the invalidity itself arose from the respondent’s fraudulent conduct. According to the Court, denying maintenance in such circumstances would amount to punishing the victim for the wrongdoing of the person who had deceived her.

The Court specifically observed that where marriage ceremonies had been performed after the respondent concealed his religious identity, rejecting the woman’s claim solely because the marriage could not legally be recognised would result in “further victimisation” of a woman who had already suffered deception, cruelty, and abandonment.

The High Court held that the finding of the Family Court refusing to recognise the petitioner as a legally wedded wife for the purpose of maintenance was unsustainable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Court emphasised that legal adjudication must remain sensitive to the realities faced by women who are induced into marital relationships through fraud and misrepresentation.

The Court also took note of the respondent’s conduct after the marriage. The allegations that he compelled the petitioner to convert her religion, subjected her to physical violence upon her refusal, threatened her parents, and later attempted to abduct her from a temple remained unrebutted because of his absence during the proceedings. These circumstances further reinforced the petitioner’s claim that she had suffered significant hardship at the hands of the respondent.

While considering the claim of the minor daughter, the High Court observed that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court was wholly inadequate. Recognising the increasing cost of living and the financial requirements of raising a child, the Court found it appropriate to substantially enhance the maintenance payable to the daughter.

Accordingly, the Court modified the Family Court’s judgment. It awarded maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to the petitioner-wife from the date of filing of the maintenance application. Simultaneously, it enhanced the maintenance payable to the minor daughter from ₹2,000 per month to ₹10,000 per month, also with effect from the date of filing of the application.

The judgment reflects the High Court’s commitment to ensuring that technical questions regarding the validity of marriage do not defeat the beneficial purpose of maintenance provisions where a woman has been deceived into a marital relationship. By focusing on the respondent’s fraudulent conduct rather than the formal validity of the marriage alone, the Court adopted a victim-centric approach that advances the principles of equity, fairness, and social justice.

The decision also reinforces the broader judicial trend of interpreting maintenance laws liberally to protect vulnerable women and children from destitution. It recognises that maintenance provisions are social welfare measures intended to prevent financial hardship and cannot be interpreted in a manner that rewards deception or permits an erring spouse to evade responsibility by relying upon his own wrongful conduct.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that justice demanded restoration of the petitioner’s right to maintenance. Holding that the Family Court’s approach had resulted in further victimisation of an already aggrieved woman, the Court set aside the impugned finding, granted maintenance to the petitioner, enhanced the maintenance payable to the minor daughter, and ensured that both would receive the benefit from the date of institution of the maintenance proceedings.