₹1 lakh per month maintenance for woman who owned ₹1.7 crore flat, luxury cars: What Madras High Court held

The Madras High Court recently upheld a family court order directing that ₹1 lakh be paid as monthly maintenance to a woman by her estranged partner, rejecting his argument that there was no need to grant such maintenance since she owned high-value property and luxury cars.

Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the woman admittedly owned a flat purchased for ₹1.7 crore and two luxury cars. However, the evidence showed that after the birth of the couple's child, the woman did not have a regular source of income. The man had also failed to produce evidence to establish otherwise.

“Considering the status of the parties and the fact that the 1st respondent had established that she had no regular source of income, the maintenance quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- is reasonable and no interference is called for," the Court ruled.

The Court made the observation while dismissed man's (petitioner) plea challenging a family court order that directed him to pay ₹1 lakh per month as maintenance to a woman who claimed to be his wife, and ₹1.5 lakh per month as maintenance for their minor son.

The case arose from a maintenance petition filed by a woman, who said she had become acquainted with the petitioner in 2014 when she was working as a model. According to her, the man initially introduced himself as a film producer and later told her that he ran an educational institution.

She claimed that she initially rejected his proposal because he was already married. However, he subsequently represented that he had divorced his wife and allegedly showed her a copy of a divorce order.

The woman said that the two eventually married at a temple in Uthiramerur in January 2020 and had a son in March 2021. She alleged that the man stopped visiting her and the child from June 2022.

The man denied that a marriage had taken place and argued that the woman knew he was already married. He also contended that she had sufficient means to maintain herself, pointing to the ₹1.7 crore property and the two luxury cars.

The family court nevertheless awarded ₹1 lakh per month to the woman and ₹1.5 lakh to the child. It found that the man had misled her into believing that he was divorced and could not take advantage of his own wrong.

The High Court affirmed these findings.

It further noted that the man's monthly income had been assessed at ₹10 lakh by the family court and that this finding was not disputed before the High Court.

The Court also rejected the argument that the woman (respondent) could not claim maintenance because she had failed to strictly prove a valid marriage.

Justice Mohan said that maintenance proceedings serve a social-welfare purpose and strict proof of marriage is not necessary where a man and woman have lived together continuously for a sufficiently long period.

"The standard of proof to  establish the marriage in a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be the  same as that is required to prove the offence of bigamy ... in a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. strict proof of marriage is not essential  and if it is shown that the relationship was continuous and for a sufficiently long time, the marriage can be presumed," the Court said.

The Court also relied on the child's birth certificate, Aadhaar records and photographs to conclude that the relationship had been continuous and that the man had treated the woman as his wife.

The High Court accordingly dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the family court's maintenance order.

Senior Advocate B Kumar, instructed by Advocate T Sudhan Raj, represented the petitioner.

Advocate B Poongkhulali appeared for the respondent.

[Read Order]