States High court

Caught in the Legal Tangle: Allahabad HC Ruling Leaves Husband Unable to Evade Maintenance Duties

The Allahabad High Court in Ram Adhare Paswan v. State of U.P. and Another recently upheld a family court’s decision requiring a man to pay Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance to his wife, despite his argument that their marriage wasn’t valid due to her prior divorce.

Justice Rajeev Misra’s bench emphasized the couple’s 15 ½ years of cohabitation as husband and wife, with the man deserting the woman. The court affirmed that their 1998 marriage was valid and ruled that the husband couldn’t escape his responsibility to provide maintenance due to a legal technicality.

The Allahabad High Court pointed out that the Supreme Court had already settled the issue at hand in the Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha case (2011). This landmark ruling established that even in cases where a couple hadn’t fulfilled the legal requirements for marriage if they lived together for an extended period and the man deserted the woman, he would still be liable to provide maintenance.

The court highlighted the principle that individuals shouldn’t exploit legal loopholes to evade their responsibilities after enjoying the benefits of a de facto marriage. In the case before the high court, Kabutari Devi initially married Deenanath in 1998, but they separated due to marital discord. She then married Ram Adhare Paswan, who also abandoned her in 2014.

In 2005, the woman and her first husband reached a compromise, allowing them both to remarry. Later, after her second husband abandoned her, she filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The family court acknowledged the validity of both her marriages, ruling in her favor and ordering her second husband to pay maintenance.

The second husband appealed, arguing that since her first marriage wasn’t dissolved by court decree under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, their marriage was void, and she couldn’t claim maintenance.

Yet, the high court upheld the family court’s decision, refusing to intervene.

Read More: Supreme CourtDelhi High CourtStates High CourtOther CourtsInternational

Payal Singh

Recent Posts

Akshay Kumar Moves Bombay HC To Protect His Personality Rights

Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar has approached the Bombay High Court seeking protection of his personality…

2 months ago

Bribery Case: CBI Arrests NHIDCL Executive Director

The Central Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday arrested the Executive Director and Regional Officer of…

2 months ago

Supreme Court Issues Slew Of Directions On Green Crackers Issue

The Supreme Court on Wednesday laid down detailed interim guidelines permitting the sale and use…

2 months ago

INX Media Case: Delhi HC Relaxes Travel Restrictions On Karti Chidambaram

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday relaxed the travel restrictions placed on Congress MP Karti…

2 months ago

Delhi HC Rules Lawyers’ Offices Not Commercial Establishments; Quashes NDMC Case Against Advocate

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday clarified that the professional office of a lawyer does…

2 months ago

Delhi HC Allows Actor Rajpal Yadav To Travel To Dubai For Diwali Event

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday permitted actor Rajpal Yadav to travel to Dubai to…

2 months ago