Introduction
In Murti Devi & Anr v. Balkar Singh, 2025, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dealt with a petition by a woman seeking interim maintenance from a man she accused of rape. The court examined whether she could claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after living with him in a “live-in” relationship and being promised marriage. Ultimately, it held she could not, since their relationship could not be equated to a husband-wife tie once a rape conviction stood.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner claimed that she had lived with the respondent for ten years. She said they had a child together. She alleged that he promised to marry her, but never did so.
On her complaint, the court convicted the respondent under Section 376 IPC (rape). The trial Magistrate had earlier granted interim maintenance to her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent challenged that order. The Revisional Court set aside the trial Magistrate’s decision, and the High Court then reviewed that reversal.
What the Court Says
The High Court first noted that the petitioner and respondent were never legally married. It held that since he had been convicted of rape at her instance, their cohabitation could not be treated as a marital relationship for claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court observed that the legal relationship of husband and wife imposes reciprocal obligations, and that relationship cannot subsist alongside a conviction for sexual assault.
It said the trial Magistrate erred when it granted maintenance to the petitioner despite the criminal conviction. The High Court affirmed that the petitioner lacked entitlement to maintenance. However, it left intact the earlier orders awarding maintenance for the minor child. The court saw no reason to disturb the Revisional Court’s judgment, and it set aside the Magistrate’s order in favor of the petitioner.
Implications
This decision clarifies that a woman cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from a man who has been convicted of rape after a live-in relationship on a promise of marriage. The court’s reasoning draws a line. The civil remedy of maintenance under Section 125 presumes a lawful spousal or familial tie. This cannot co-exist with a criminal finding of non-consensual sexual intercourse.
It warns lower courts to avoid conflating a long cohabitation or promise of marriage with a legally enforceable marital relationship when a criminal rape conviction is involved. This judgment may narrow maintenance claims in similar fact situations, especially where the parties are not formally married. At the same time, it affirms that the rights of minor children to maintenance remain unaffected.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
In Murti Devi & Anr v. Balkar Singh, the High Court rejected the woman’s claim for interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from her live-in partner. He stood convicted under Section 376 IPC. The court held that once a rape conviction arises, the relationship cannot be treated as husband and wife. This is for maintenance purposes. The order stands: she gets no maintenance, but the child’s maintenance continues.
