In Gaurav Kalura v. State of Uttarakhand & Another (Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2026, 2026:UHC:8160, decided on 10 September 2026), the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a husband's revision against a Family Court order directing him to pay maintenance of ₹20,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC. The Court held that the revisionist could not dispute the validity of the marriage in maintenance proceedings when his own civil suit seeking a declaration that the marriage was null and void had been dismissed for want of prosecution and never restored.
The Dispute
The Family Court had awarded the wife maintenance of ₹20,000 per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The husband carried the matter to the High Court in revision, contending principally that no valid marriage existed between the parties — the ceremonies essential under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, he argued, had never been performed — and that a maintenance award could not rest on a relationship whose foundation was disputed.
The Estoppel That Decided the Case
Justice Alok Mahra rejected the challenge for a reason that had little to do with the ceremonies and everything to do with the husband's own litigation conduct. The husband had earlier instituted a civil suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act seeking a declaration that the marriage was null and void. That suit was dismissed for lack of prosecution, and he never sought its restoration.
Having chosen the forum in which the validity of the marriage was to be decided, and having allowed that challenge to die, the husband could not resurrect the same plea collaterally in summary maintenance proceedings. The Court held him estopped from disputing the marriage\'s validity.
Summary Proceedings, Summary Standard
The judgment also restates a principle of daily importance in maintenance practice: proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in character, designed to prevent destitution, and the standard of proof of the marital relationship in such proceedings is not the strict standard of a matrimonial or criminal trial. The Family Court had appreciated the available evidence establishing the relationship, and that appreciation disclosed no perversity warranting revisional interference.
The husband's acquittal in a related criminal case — arising out of allegations under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act — was held not to conclusively determine marital status for maintenance purposes. An acquittal answers whether an offence was proved beyond reasonable doubt; it does not decide whether a relationship exists on the preponderance standard that governs a maintenance enquiry.
The Practice Points
Provisions at a Glance
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS | Order for maintenance of wife, children and parents |
| Section 7, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage |
| Section 34, Specific Relief Act, 1963 | Suit for declaration — the route the husband chose and abandoned |
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation. The cited judgment should be read in full from the official record.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a wife have to prove marriage strictly in a maintenance case?
No. Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC — now Section 144 BNSS — are summary in nature. The applicant needs to establish the relationship on a prima facie standard, not by the strict proof required in a matrimonial or criminal trial. This decision reiterates that distinction.
What happened to the husband's challenge to the marriage?
He had filed a civil suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act seeking a declaration that the marriage was null and void, but the suit was dismissed for lack of prosecution and was never reinstated. The High Court held he was therefore estopped from re-agitating the validity of the marriage in the maintenance revision.
Does acquittal in a criminal case affect maintenance?
Not by itself. The Court noted that the revisionist's acquittal in a connected criminal case did not conclusively determine marital status for the purposes of maintenance, because the two proceedings answer different questions on different standards of proof.
What is the equivalent provision after 1 July 2024?
Section 125 CrPC corresponds to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Applications filed after the BNSS came into force invoke Section 144, and the settled case law under Section 125 continues to guide those proceedings.