By IndiaHub 
She argued in the court that this second man had assured her that divorce can be obtained via legal notarized settlement agreement, which he supposedly did with his wife. She told the court that due to this belief, she married him.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed her arguments, stating that while she lived with him for nearly ten years and their relationship might seem like a marriage, such cohabitation does not confer her the legal status of a wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
The Allahabad High Court said that if the society allows a woman to remain legally married to one man, yet live with another without dissolving the first marriage, and then seek maintenance from the second man, it would undermine the very object and sanctity of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the institution of marriage would lose its legal and social integrity.
On December 8, 2025 she lost the case in the Allahabad High Court.
Also read: No maintenance for wife earning Rs 36,000 per month with ‘no other liabilities’, husband has old parents to look after; Allahabad HC ruling
The case in short
The basic details of this case as it emerges are that the wife was previously married to Mr. Tiwari on April 29, 1992 following Hindu customs and they had two children together. Subsequently, due to matrimonial discord, both parties started living separately, leading the husband to file a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, known as Case No. 237 of 2005.
The wife didn’t attend the hearing for this case, resulting in the divorce being granted ex-parte on April 2, 2009, which meant the divorce did not happen. During this time, she met an advocate practicing in District Court, Unnao. She claimed that he told her that the previous marriage could be dissolved through a family settlement and notarized agreement.
Additionally, she claimed that he had also ended his previous marriage similarly and even provided a copy of that notarized settlement dated August 24, 2005 executed with his former wife.
In court, she stated that she trusted his advice and representations about the notarized settlement, which led to their marriage on June 30, 2009 and cohabited as husband and wife for nearly a decade.
Her lawyers pointed out in court that her name is recorded as his wife in official documents including Aadhaar Card and Passport, and she has been socially acknowledged as his spouse.
However, after years of living together, his son and he began to treat her with cruelty and harassment, prompting her to file criminal cases against them. During the investigation and witness testimonies related to these criminal cases, she was acknowleded as wife and stepmother.
Even after a long marital relationship, he deserted her and wouldn’t let her back into their home in March 2018, which forced her to file for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Also read: Wife hid her Rs 1 lakh monthly salary; Madras High Court cuts her maintenance payment from Rs 15,000 to Rs 10,000
Why did she lose the case in Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court said that the divorce petition instituted by her against the first husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed in default. Thus, the first marriage of the revisionist continues to subsist in law.
The Allahabad High Court said that from the arguments and material on record, it is further evident that he (the advocate she was in live-in relationship with) was also previously married, and he too entered into a second marital relationship without dissolution of his earlier marriage.
Allahabad High Court said: “Hence, both individuals stand married in law at the time of their alleged second marriage. In terms of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage contracted during the lifetime of a spouse is void ab initio, and such a union cannot create the legal status of husband and wife.”
The Allahabad High Court said that the contention of the wife that she believed his words on being shown a notarized deed of mutual divorce and thereafter solemnized marriage with him, and that in various proceedings he had acknowledged her as his wife, cannot be accepted.
The reason clearly is that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the wife (in this case) does not fall within the definition of a legally wedded wife, the Allahabad High Court said.
Allahabad High Court examines Supreme Court case law and does not apply it in this case
The Allahabad High Court said that the Supreme Court in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 1809, has held that the expression wife cannot be expanded so widely as to include a woman who is not legally married.
Though the wife has relied upon Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr., (2014) 1 SCC 188, the ratio therein is distinguishable inasmuch as maintenance was granted only because the second wife was unaware of the first marriage of the husband and her own earlier marriage already stood dissolved.
The Supreme Court said that in the present case, the wife admits her subsisting marriage with Mr. Tiwari (first husband) and there is no decree of divorce. Her plea that she acted on the basis of mutual settlement and notarized deed cannot confer her legal status, particularly when she herself initiated divorce proceedings which later stood dismissed.
The Allahabad High Court said: “Therefore, the plea of ignorance regarding the dissolution of the first marriage cannot be accepted.”
Wife can’t claim maintenance based on long-standing relationship
The Allahabad High Court said they are of the view that although the wife lived with him for nearly ten years and the relationship appeared like marriage, yet such cohabitation does not confer her legal status of a wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Allahabad High Court said: “In law, even assuming a marriage ceremony was performed, the same would be void as the applicant’s earlier marital tie continued to subsist. Thus, she cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. based on a long standing relationship.”
The Allahabad High Court said that if such a practice is permitted in society, where a woman continues to remain legally married to one man, yet resides with another without obtaining dissolution of the first marriage, and thereafter seeks maintenance from the latter, the very object and sanctity of Section 125 Cr.P.C. would stand diluted and the institution of marriage would lose its legal and social integrity.
Allahabad High Court said: “Such a proposition neither aligns with the legislative intent nor with the ethical and cultural foundation of Hindu family law.”
Allahabad High Court judgement: “Accordingly, this court holds that the revisionist (wife) does not fall within the ambit of a legally wedded wife for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and therefore, her maintenance application was rightly rejected. The impugned judgment warrants no interference. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed.”
What might be some key takeaways from this judgement?
ET Wealth Online has asked many lawyers about what might be some key takeaways from this judgement, here’s what they said:
Aakanksha Nehra, Partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors, said: This is an order which is largely premised on the principle that ignorance of law is not a defence. In the facts of this case, the wife had requested to seek benefit under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on account of an admitted position of facts that both parties were married earlier and no formal divorce had been obtained.
It was the submission on behalf of the applicant wife that the respondent husband being a lawyer had represented to her that marriage could be dissolved through an interse notarised settlement agreement and that he had been divorced from his earlier wife on this basis as well . However, the court did not uphold such submissions of the applicant’s wife as it is a fundamental principle of law that ignorance of law is no defence.
Hence, it remains an established thread of legal principle that parties should act in compliance of law and no representation of the nature alleged can enable a party to seek benefit if the law doesn’t enable it.
Vipul Wadhwa, Partner, Singhania & Co., said: A perusal of the judgment would show that the Hon’ble High Court has prioritized the sanctity and integrity of marriage over the law.
- Though there are strong laws to protect the rights of individuals within a marriage, the first instinct of any court of law is to preserve the integrity of marriage as envisaged in Indian tradition and culture
- A void marriage does not entitle a wife to claim maintenance, even if the parties were living together as husband and wife.
- Before remarrying, it is obligatory for a party to dissolve their prior marriage strictly in accordance with law.
According to Wadhwa, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Revisionist challenging the order of the lower court rejecting her application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). The Hon’ble High Court upheld the order of the lower court, observing that the Revisionist was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, as her previous marriage was never legally dissolved. Likewise, Respondent No. 2 (the Revisionist’s second spouse) was also found to be legally married to his first wife at the relevant time.
Wadhwa says: “In view of the subsistence of the prior marriages of both parties, the Court held that the alleged subsequent marriage between them was void ab initio under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Consequently, the Revisionist could not be treated as a “legally wedded wife” within the meaning of Section 125 CrPC and was therefore not entitled to claim maintenance.”