The maintenance jurisdiction is a measure of social justice, and courts have consistently refused to let it be defeated by the very deception that created the relationship. On 21 September 2026, Justice Sunder Mohan of the Madras High Court in G.Ra. Gokul v. Aishwariya S., Crl. R.C. No. 1116 of 2026, confirmed a Family Court's award of Rs 1,00,000 per month to a woman — and Rs 1,50,000 to the son born of the relationship — against a man who had induced the marriage by claiming to be divorced, and then disputed her status as "wife" under Section 144 of the BNSS.
The relationship and the deception
The parties met in 2014. In 2016, the petitioner — describing himself as a film producer and later the owner of an educational institution — approached the respondent professing that he was divorced, and showed her documents to that effect. They married at a temple in January 2020, and a son was born in March 2021. From June 2022 the petitioner ceased contact. The respondent applied under Section 144 of the BNSS, seeking maintenance for herself and the child, asserting that the petitioner earned around Rs 30 lakhs a month. The Family Court awarded Rs 1,00,000 monthly to her and Rs 1,50,000 to the child. The petitioner\'s revision to the High Court attacked her status as a wife, contending his earlier marriage subsisted.
The legal framework
Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014): a man who marries a woman by suppressing his first marriage cannot resist her maintenance claim by pleading the invalidity of the second — "he cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of maintenance to the respondent, taking advantage of his own wrong."
Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011): "wife" receives a broad and expansive interpretation; strict proof of a valid marriage is not a precondition where the couple lived together as husband and wife.
Vimala v. K. Veerasamy (1991): when the husband sets up his own subsisting first marriage as a defence, the burden of proving it lies on him.
What the Court held
Justice Sunder Mohan dismissed the revision and confirmed the Family Court\'s order. The petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proving that his first marriage subsisted when he married the respondent. She, on the other hand, had proved the marriage ceremony, years of cohabitation and the birth of their son through documents — the birth certificate, Aadhaar records and photographs — that consistently described the petitioner as her husband and the child\'s father. Once the deception was established, Badshah squarely applied: the petitioner could not convert his own wrong into a defence. The quantum, fixed with reference to his asserted means and lifestyle, called for no interference within the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Maintenance for the child stood on even firmer ground: a father\'s obligation to maintain his minor child under Section 144 BNSS does not depend on the validity of the marriage between the parents at all.
Points of practice
| Issue | Working rule |
|---|---|
| Status as "wife" disputed | Prove the ceremony and cohabitation; documents naming the man as husband/father carry real weight. The purposive reading of "wife" protects women deceived into marriage. |
| Husband pleads his own first marriage | He must prove its subsistence strictly; a bare assertion, or proof of a long-dissolved marriage, will not do. |
| Quantum | File complete asset-and-income affidavits per Rajnesh v. Neha; lifestyle evidence (businesses, properties, social profile) fills the gaps left by understated declarations. |
| Revision against maintenance orders | Revisional courts correct jurisdictional errors and perversity, not the arithmetic of a plausible award. |
The takeaway
The judgment adds to a steady line of authority ensuring that the social-justice purpose of the maintenance jurisdiction is not defeated by technical pleas about marital status — least of all pleas founded on the respondent\'s own deceit. For claimants in Delhi\'s family courts, the combination of Badshah, Chanmuniya and Rajnesh provides a complete toolkit: establish the relationship, put the burden of the first marriage where it belongs, and prove means through affidavits and lifestyle evidence.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a woman claim maintenance if the marriage turns out to be legally void?
Where the man induced the marriage by concealing a subsisting first marriage, yes. Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) holds that such a man cannot deny maintenance by pleading the invalidity his own deception produced. Courts also give the word "wife" in the maintenance provision a broad, purposive interpretation, as recognised in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha.
Who bears the burden of proving the first marriage?
The husband who sets up his own earlier marriage to defeat the claim must prove that it subsisted at the time of the second marriage. In this case, the Court found he had failed to do so, while the woman established long cohabitation through the child's birth certificate, Aadhaar records and photographs naming him as husband and father.
How is the quantum of maintenance fixed in such cases?
On the same principles as any maintenance case: the applicant's reasonable needs, the standard of living during cohabitation, and the respondent's means and earning capacity, tested against the affidavits of assets required by Rajnesh v. Neha. Here the woman alleged the petitioner's monthly income ran into tens of lakhs; the Family Court's figures of Rs 1,00,000 and Rs 1,50,000 were held to require no interference in revision.
Does Section 144 BNSS change the law under Section 125 CrPC?
No. Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 re-enacts Section 125 CrPC with the same structure, and the case law developed under the older provision — including Badshah and Chanmuniya — continues to apply to proceedings under the new code.