A maintenance court does not demand the strict proof of marriage that a matrimonial or criminal court might. In Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others (Criminal Revision No. 2371 of 2019, Neutral Citation 2026:AHC:202710, decided 28 September 2026), Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay of the Allahabad High Court upheld a Family Court order directing a husband to pay ₹15,000 per month to his wife and ₹10,000 to their daughter under Section 125 CrPC, rejecting his case that the marriage itself was a fabrication by a former domestic helper — and reiterating that up to a quarter of the husband's net salary is a safe measure of maintenance.
The husband’s case — and why it failed
The wife’s case was straightforward: an Arya Samaj marriage at Kanpur on 26 March 2010, followed by dowry demands and cruelty, and expulsion from the matrimonial home in December 2011. The husband’s answer was radical — there was no marriage at all; the claimant had worked as a domestic helper and had procured forged documents.
The Family Court disbelieved him and awarded ₹15,000 per month to the wife and ₹10,000 to the daughter. In revision, the High Court agreed: the marriage stood “duly established by the certified marriage certificate and photographs”, and the husband had “failed to rebut with any cogent evidence”. An allegation of forgery is not self-proving; the party who makes it must lay an evidentiary foundation, and none existed.
The standard of proof, in context
Bigamy prosecutions and some matrimonial reliefs require proof of a valid marriage with essential ceremonies performed.
Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS proceedings need only prima facie proof — documents, photographs, cohabitation and reputation — because the object is to prevent destitution, not to adjudicate status finally.
This asymmetry is deliberate. A husband remains free to contest the marriage in a properly constituted civil proceeding; he cannot use the summary maintenance forum to starve out the claimant while status is litigated.
Quantum: the 25% yardstick
On amount, the Court found ₹15,000 and ₹10,000 reasonable as “social security provision”, observing that “up to 25% of the husband’s net salary can safely be awarded as maintenance.” The one-fourth measure recurs across High Courts and gives litigants a realistic anchor:
| Factor | Effect on quantum |
|---|---|
| Husband’s net income | Starting point; roughly a quarter for the wife is treated as safe |
| Dependent children | Separate, additional provision — here ₹10,000 for the daughter |
| Husband’s lawful obligations | Genuine liabilities and dependants moderate the figure |
| Standard of living | The marital lifestyle sets the reasonable-needs benchmark |
Takeaways
For claimants: preserve and file the primary documents — the marriage certificate, photographs, call records, joint documents — at the Family Court stage. A prima facie foundation well laid is nearly unassailable in revision.
For respondents: a denial-of-marriage defence is among the weakest answers to a maintenance claim unless backed by real evidence of fabrication. It also reads poorly: courts notice when a spouse’s response to a maintenance claim is to disown the relationship wholesale.
Delhi Family Courts apply the same framework under Section 144 BNSS, with the affidavit-of-assets discipline layered on top. Where salary is documented, expect awards to be tested against the one-fourth measure; where income is concealed, courts infer it from lifestyle and spending.
Frequently Asked Questions
What proof of marriage is needed in a Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS case?
Prima facie proof suffices. Maintenance proceedings are summary and preventive in character, so a certified marriage certificate, photographs, cohabitation, and social recognition of the relationship will ordinarily establish the marriage unless convincingly rebutted. Strict proof of ceremonies, required in bigamy prosecutions, is not the standard.
Who bears the burden when the husband alleges the marriage documents are forged?
The husband who asserts forgery must substantiate it with cogent evidence. In this case, the certified certificate from the marriage and supporting photographs stood, and the husband's bare denial — with no material to displace the documents — failed both before the Family Court and in revision.
Is there a rule of thumb for the quantum of maintenance?
Courts frequently treat about one-fourth of the husband's net income as a reasonable award for a wife, adjusted for the number of dependants, his lawful obligations, and the standard of living. The Allahabad High Court repeated that up to 25% of net salary "can safely be awarded". It is a yardstick, not a fixed formula.
Does maintenance under Section 125 CrPC survive the new criminal codes?
Yes. From 1 July 2024 the provision continues as Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in materially similar terms, and orders and proceedings under the old Section 125 remain valid. The substantive principles — including prima facie proof of marriage — carry forward.