The commonest defence to a maintenance claim is an attack on the marriage itself. Where the man was already married, the second marriage is void — and some respondents argue that a void marriage means no “wife” and therefore no maintenance. In CRL RC No. 1116 of 2026, decided on 21 September 2026, Justice Sunder Mohan of the Madras High Court rejected precisely that argument from a man who had convinced the claimant he was divorced when he was not: a man cannot take advantage of his own wrong, and the social-justice purpose of Section 125 CrPC — now Section 144 BNSS — does not permit strict proof of marriage to defeat a deceived woman and her child.
The facts
The parties were in a long-term relationship during which the petitioner represented that he was divorced. They married in 2020; a son was born in 2021. From mid-2022 the petitioner ceased contact, and the respondent sought maintenance for herself and the child, pleading that his monthly income was about ₹30 lakh and claiming ₹6 lakh for herself and ₹4 lakh for the son. His defence before the Family Court and in revision was that the marriage was invalid because his earlier marriage subsisted — and that the respondent knew as much. The Family Court awarded ₹1,00,000 and ₹1,50,000 per month to the woman and child respectively; the High Court has confirmed the award.
The court’s reasoning
Own wrong, no advantage
The Court held that “a man cannot take advantage of his own wrong when he had duped the second wife into a belief that he had divorced his first wife.” The invalidity he pleaded was of his own manufacture, and equity bars a defence built on one’s own fraud.
Social justice, summary proof
Section 125 CrPC exists “to protect women and children”; in that summary jurisdiction, “strict proof of marriage is not essential” where a continuous relationship in the character of marriage is established.
Quantum follows means
Against pleaded means of the order of ₹30 lakh monthly, the combined award of ₹2.5 lakh was well within the range of reasonableness, and the revisional court found no ground to interfere.
Where the law stands on maintenance and disputed marriages
| Scenario | Maintenance position |
|---|---|
| Valid subsisting marriage | Full entitlement under S. 144 BNSS, subject to the statutory disqualifications |
| Second marriage void, woman deceived about the first | Entitlement upheld — the man cannot plead his own wrong; summary proof of the relationship suffices |
| Woman knowingly married a married man | Contested terrain; knowledge of the subsisting marriage weakens the claim under S. 144 BNSS, though DV Act monetary relief may remain arguable |
| Child of any such union | Always entitled — legitimacy is irrelevant to the child’s claim |
The knowledge question is where these cases are won and lost. The respondent here alleged the claimant knew of his first marriage; the courts disbelieved him on the record. Evidence of the representation — matrimonial profiles, messages, the conduct of the wedding — becomes decisive.
Practice pointers
For claimants in Delhi’s family courts, the case reinforces a preparation discipline: plead and prove the representation of single or divorced status, document the marriage ceremony and cohabitation, and lay a proper foundation for the respondent’s income — the Rajnesh v. Neha affidavit regime gives the court the tools to test pleaded means. For respondents, the decision is a caution that the void-marriage defence is not a trump card; it invites scrutiny of who created the invalidity and who knew what. And for both sides, the child’s maintenance should be treated as a separate, essentially undefendable head, sized to the child’s needs and the father’s standard of living rather than to the matrimonial controversy.
Core holding: concealment of a subsisting marriage does not convert into immunity from maintenance. The deceived partner and the child are protected, and quantum answers to the payer’s means.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Maintenance claims turn on the evidence of relationship, representation and income in each case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What amounts were awarded?
The Family Court awarded ₹1,00,000 per month to the woman and ₹1,50,000 per month to the child; the High Court dismissed the man’s revision and confirmed both figures. The claim had pleaded his monthly income at around ₹30 lakh.
How can a “void” marriage support maintenance?
Because Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS is a measure of social justice, not a forum for technical matrimonial adjudication. Where a man induces a woman into marriage by concealing a subsisting marriage, courts refuse to let him plead the resulting invalidity — his own wrong — to escape maintenance. Strict proof of a valid marriage is not required where a continuous marital relationship is shown.
Is the child’s maintenance affected by the marriage dispute at all?
No. A child’s entitlement under Section 144 BNSS does not depend on the validity of the parents’ marriage; legitimate and illegitimate children alike are covered. Whatever the outcome of the marriage question, the child’s claim stands on the father’s paternity and means.
Does this reasoning apply in Delhi courts?
Yes. Delhi courts follow the same Supreme Court line: the summary maintenance jurisdiction demands only prima facie proof of the relationship, and a respondent who deceived the claimant about his marital status cannot convert that deceit into a defence.