The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld an order setting aside interim maintenance granted to a woman who had been in a live-in relationship with a man she later accused of rape. The Court held that because she was not legally married to the respondent, she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), even though she had claimed that she had lived with him for ten years, had a child with him, and had been promised marriage.
The case, titled Murti Devi & Anr v. Balkar Singh, 2025, involved a petitioner who had been awarded interim maintenance by the trial Magistrate. The petitioner asserted a long period of cohabitation, the presence of a child, and assurances from the respondent regarding marriage. However, the respondent was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on her complaint of rape.
The Bench, led by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, observed that once the respondent was convicted for rape under Section 376 IPC, the parties could not be regarded as husband and wife for the purposes of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court noted that maintenance under Section 125 depends on a legal prerequisite: the existence of a “wife-husband” relationship. Since no marriage had taken place, and given the respondent’s criminal conviction, this relationship did not exist in law.
The High Court accepted the Revisional Court’s finding that the petitioner was not entitled to interim maintenance. It affirmed that maintenance awarded to the minor child of the relationship would remain unaffected, but the award to the petitioner herself was invalid. The Court held the trial Magistrate had erred in granting maintenance to the petitioner despite there being no legal marriage, and despite the criminal conviction—which by its nature precludes treating the parties as spouses in this context.
In its decision, the Court emphasized that the principles underpinning criminal law and family maintenance law differ: a claimant under Section 125 must meet the legal conditions set out in that section. The Court held that the absence of marriage and the presence of a criminal conviction under Section 376 IPC meant that the condition for claiming maintenance by a former live‐in partner was unmet. The High Court found no irregularity or miscarriage of justice in overturning the trial Magistrate's order and left in force the maintenance orders related to the minor child.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.