March 08, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a woman’s plea seeking ₹1 lakh per month in maintenance from her second husband, holding that she was not legally entitled to claim maintenance because her second marriage was void. The court found that she had entered the second marriage without obtaining a legal divorce from her first husband, who was still alive.
A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha passed the order while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a woman from Bhilai in Durg district. She had challenged a January 20, 2026 order of the Durg Family Court that rejected her maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now reflected in Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The woman had claimed that she married the respondent on July 10, 2020 in an Arya Samaj temple and later faced physical and mental cruelty. She alleged that her husband, who she claimed earned about ₹5 lakh per month, assaulted her and eventually forced her out of the matrimonial home. On that basis, she sought ₹1 lakh per month as maintenance.
However, during cross-examination before the Family Court, the woman admitted that she had been previously married and that her first husband was still alive. She also acknowledged that she had not obtained a legal divorce before solemnising the second marriage. She further stated that she had two adult sons from the first marriage who lived with her.
Relying on these admissions, the Family Court held that the second marriage was void because it violated the conditions prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court also noted that the woman had earlier worked as an Asha worker and was physically capable of earning and maintaining herself. Her maintenance petition was therefore dismissed.
When the matter reached the High Court, the bench examined the record and found no legal error in the Family Court’s reasoning. The court observed that under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a valid Hindu marriage can only be solemnised if neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage. If this condition is violated, Section 11 of the Act declares such a marriage void from the beginning.
Since the woman had not legally dissolved her first marriage before entering the second one, the court held that the subsequent marriage had no legal validity. As a result, the relationship did not qualify as a legally recognised marital relationship for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The High Court therefore dismissed the criminal revision petition and upheld the Family Court’s order rejecting the maintenance claim.
The court also clarified that although marriages performed in Arya Samaj temples are legally recognised when statutory conditions are satisfied, the ceremony itself cannot validate a marriage that violates the mandatory requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The ruling reiterates the settled legal position that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is available only to a legally recognised wife. If a marriage is void due to the existence of a prior subsisting marriage, the woman cannot claim maintenance from the second partner under this provision.
