The Madras High Court has upheld an order directing a man to pay ₹1 lakh every month to a woman who claimed to be his wife, rejecting his argument that she did not require financial support because she owned a ₹1.7 crore flat and two luxury cars.
Justice Sunder Mohan observed that while the woman owned valuable assets, the evidence before the Court indicated that she had no regular income after the birth of the couple’s child. The man had not produced material showing that she was earning enough to support herself.
The Court found the monthly maintenance of ₹1 lakh reasonable, taking into account the financial position and circumstances of both parties.
The dispute originated from a maintenance petition filed by the woman, who said she met the man in 2014 while working as a model. She stated that he initially described himself as a film producer and later said he was running an educational institution.
According to her account, she was initially reluctant to enter into a relationship with him because he was already married. She later agreed after he allegedly told her that he had divorced his first wife and showed her what he represented to be a divorce order.
The woman said the two subsequently married at a temple in Uthiramerur in January 2020. Their son was born in March 2021.
She alleged that the man stopped visiting her and their child from June 2022.
The man disputed the existence of any marriage. He maintained that the woman knew he was already married and therefore could not claim maintenance as his wife. He also relied on her ownership of the expensive flat and luxury vehicles to argue that she had sufficient financial resources.
The family court rejected those arguments and ordered him to pay ₹1 lakh per month to the woman and ₹1.5 lakh per month towards the maintenance of their minor son.
The family court also concluded that the man had misled the woman into believing that he was legally free to marry her and could not benefit from the consequences of his own conduct.
The High Court found no reason to interfere with those findings.
Another factor considered by the Court was the man’s income. The family court had assessed his monthly earnings at ₹10 lakh, and that assessment was not challenged before the High Court.
Strict proof of marriage not required in maintenance proceedings
The Court also addressed the man’s argument that the woman had not established a legally valid marriage to the standard required for claiming maintenance.
Justice Mohan pointed out that proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have a social-welfare purpose. Consequently, the standard for establishing a marital relationship in such proceedings is not identical to the strict standard applicable in criminal proceedings involving offences such as bigamy.
Where a man and woman have lived together continuously for a considerable period and the surrounding circumstances support the existence of a marital relationship, the Court said, a marriage may be presumed for the purpose of maintenance proceedings.
In this case, the Court took into account several pieces of material, including the child’s birth certificate, Aadhaar records and photographs, which supported the woman’s claim that the relationship had continued over a substantial period and that she had been treated as the man’s wife.
The High Court therefore dismissed the man’s revision petition and left intact the family court’s direction requiring him to pay ₹1 lakh a month to the woman and ₹1.5 lakh a month for their child.