No Divorce, No Maintenance: Chhattisgarh High Court's Landmark Ruling on Second Marriage Claims

A woman cannot claim maintenance from a second husband if she never legally divorced her first — however long the separation, however bitter the second marriage's breakdown, and however substantial her second husband's income. That is the unambiguous legal position reaffirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur in a ruling that has attracted significant attention in family law circles across central India.

The bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a woman from Bhilai, Durg district, who had claimed ₹1 lakh per month in maintenance from her second husband — a man she had married on July 10, 2020 at an Arya Samaj temple. The court upheld the Durg Family Court's January 20, 2026 order that had originally rejected her maintenance application, finding no legal error in the lower court's reasoning.

The ruling turns on a simple but consequential fact that emerged during cross-examination: the woman's first husband was still alive, and she had never obtained a legal divorce from him before solemnising her second marriage.

The Facts: A Marriage Built on Concealment

The case originated in Bhilai, Chhattisgarh's steel city and Durg district's commercial hub. The woman filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) — now mirrored in Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — against her second husband, claiming he had a monthly income of approximately ₹5 lakh and that she was entitled to ₹1 lakh per month to maintain herself.

Her grievance against him was not insubstantial on its face: she alleged that shortly after their 2020 Arya Samaj marriage, her husband had begun physically and mentally abusing her, assaulting her and eventually throwing her out of the matrimonial home.

When the matter came before the Durg Family Court, however, cross-examination produced a disclosure that fatally undermined her maintenance claim. The woman admitted that she had been previously married, that her first husband was still alive, and — critically — that she had not obtained a legal divorce from him before entering into the second marriage. She further acknowledged that she had two adult sons from her first marriage, who lived with her.

The Family Court found that she had misrepresented herself as unmarried when entering the second marriage. It further noted two additional factors that weighed against her maintenance claim: she had previously worked as an Asha worker (frontline health worker), and she was in good physical health — meaning she was capable of supporting herself. On January 20, 2026, the Family Court dismissed her petition.

She then filed a criminal revision before the High Court, challenging the Family Court's order. The High Court, under Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, reviewed the record and found no legal error in the Family Court's reasoning. The revision petition was dismissed.

The Legal Position: Why the Second Marriage Was Void

The ruling rests on a foundational provision of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). Section 5(i) of the Act requires that, at the time of marriage, neither party should have a spouse living. Where this condition is violated — where one party to a marriage was already married to a living spouse at the time of the second marriage — the second marriage is void ab initio under Section 11 of the HMA. It is treated in law as though it never happened.

A void marriage, by definition, creates no legally recognisable matrimonial relationship between the parties. And if no valid matrimonial relationship exists, the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC — which is premised on the existence of a wife-husband relationship — cannot be invoked.

The court's observation was clear: legal divorce from the first husband is mandatory before a second marriage can be solemnised. A marriage performed without that divorce — regardless of the religious form in which it is conducted (Arya Samaj, or any other) — does not create a legally valid marital bond.

This is not a novel legal position. It restates a principle that is well-established across decades of Supreme Court and High Court jurisprudence. What makes this ruling notable is its factual concreteness: the woman's own cross-examination admission that her first husband was alive and that no divorce had been obtained. There was no ambiguity to resolve, no disputed custom to weigh, no conflicting evidence to reconcile. The second marriage was void on her own admission.

The Section 125 Framework: Who Can Claim, Who Cannot

Section 125 CrPC — now Section 144 BNSS — is one of the most litigated provisions in Indian family law. It provides that a Magistrate may order a man to pay monthly maintenance to his wife, children, or parents if they are unable to maintain themselves. Critically for this case, it covers both married and divorced wives — but it does not extend to a woman whose "marriage" with the man from whom she is claiming maintenance was void from its inception.

The Supreme Court has, over many decades, developed a nuanced jurisprudence around this provision to protect women who enter second relationships in good faith — for instance, women who were deceived about their partner's marital status. In such cases, courts have held that the relationship was "in the nature of marriage" and entitled the woman to maintenance protection under the Domestic Violence Act, even if the underlying marriage was void.

The Chhattisgarh ruling is distinguishable from those cases in one crucial respect: here, it was the woman herself who already had a subsisting valid marriage and who concealed this fact to contract a second marriage. She was not a victim of deception — she was, on the facts as found by both courts, the party who misrepresented her own status. In such circumstances, the legal protection that exists for good-faith partners in void marriages does not apply with the same force.

The Arya Samaj Marriage Question

One aspect of this case that deserves attention is the vehicle of the second marriage: an Arya Samaj temple ceremony in July 2020. Arya Samaj marriages are legally valid under the Hindu Marriage Act when the parties fulfil the eligibility conditions under Section 5 — which includes the requirement that neither party have a living spouse. An Arya Samaj marriage certificate is a recognised document for various administrative purposes in India.

However, an Arya Samaj ceremony does not transform a legally void marriage into a valid one. The validity of a marriage under the HMA is governed by the statutory conditions in the Act, not by the form of solemnisation. A marriage conducted with all religious rites and ceremonies is still void under Section 11 if the Section 5 conditions are not met.

This is a point that many couples — and, frankly, some Arya Samaj institutions — either misunderstand or deliberately exploit. The ease of obtaining an Arya Samaj marriage certificate without thorough verification of prior marital status has historically made it a vehicle for bigamous marriages, often at the cost of first spouses who discover the second marriage long after it has been registered. The present case is an unusual inversion: the Arya Samaj ceremony was used by the woman rather than the man to formalise a second relationship without obtaining a prior divorce.

The Maintenance Quantum: ₹1 Lakh Per Month and the Income Disclosure Problem

While the court's ruling turned on the validity question, one element of the case merits separate attention: the claimed maintenance quantum of ₹1 lakh per month against an alleged income of ₹5 lakh per month for the second husband.

Under Section 125, there is no statutory ceiling on maintenance quantum — courts have discretion to determine what is "just and proper" based on the means of the payer and the needs of the claimant. The Supreme Court's 2021 guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha directed courts to take a consistent, income-disclosure-based approach to maintenance, requiring both parties to file comprehensive affidavits of assets and income.

In this case, neither the income claim nor the maintenance quantum was ultimately adjudicated because the validity question disposed of the entire petition at the threshold. But the ₹5 lakh monthly income allegation illustrates the financial stakes in maintenance litigation and the reason why such cases are contested with such intensity in family courts across India.

The Broader Pattern: Chhattisgarh HC's Recent Family Law Jurisprudence

This ruling sits within a broader pattern of significant family law decisions from the Chhattisgarh High Court over the past two years:

In January 2026, the same court (different bench) declared a "Chudi" customary marriage void under the HMA in a property dispute, holding that a widow who had remarried through local custom while her first husband's status was unclear could not claim inheritance rights through that second marriage. The court held that emotional narratives and social customs cannot override the HMA's mandatory conditions.

In May 2025, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held that a woman divorced on grounds of adultery cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, since the adultery finding in the divorce decree operates as a bar under Section 125(4).

Also from the Chhattisgarh HC: a Division Bench held that Scheduled Tribe couples who have voluntarily adopted Hindu rites and a "Hinduised" lifestyle cannot be barred from seeking mutual consent divorce under Section 13B of the HMA — significantly expanding access to consensual divorce for Hinduised tribal couples.

Taken together, these decisions reveal a court engaged in careful, case-by-case navigation of the intersection between statutory law, personal customs, and the practical realities of matrimonial breakdown in central India — consistently prioritising legal precision over social accommodation.

What This Ruling Means in Practice

For the woman in this case, the practical outcome is stark: she has no maintenance entitlement from the man she lived with for years and claims to have been abused by. Whether she has any remedy against her first husband — from whom she was separated but never legally divorced — depends on facts not in the reported proceedings.

For the broader population of women in similar situations, the ruling is a reminder that informal separation from a first husband — however long-standing, however mutually accepted in practice — does not create the legal freedom to remarry. Only a court decree of divorce (or the death of the first spouse) legally dissolves a Hindu marriage. Until that decree exists, any second marriage is void, and the legal protections that flow from marriage — including maintenance rights — do not apply to that second relationship.

This is a reality that affects a significant number of women, particularly in lower-income communities where formal divorce proceedings are expensive, time-consuming, and socially stigmatised. Many couples separate informally and form new family units — sometimes for years — without ever formalising the legal dissolution of the first marriage. The Chhattisgarh ruling is a blunt reminder of the legal cliff edge on which such arrangements stand.

The solution — accessible, affordable, and expeditious family courts that can process divorce petitions without years-long delays — is a systemic infrastructure question that no High Court ruling, however well-reasoned, can substitute for.

Key Takeaways

• Chhattisgarh High Court (Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha bench, Bilaspur) dismissed the woman's criminal revision petition claiming ₹1 lakh/month maintenance from her second husband.
• She married at an Arya Samaj temple on July 10, 2020 without obtaining a legal divorce from her first, still-living husband — making the second marriage void under Section 11 of the HMA.
• She admitted in cross-examination to having two adult sons from the first marriage; the Family Court also found her physically capable of self-support as a former Asha worker.
• The Durg Family Court's January 20, 2026 order was upheld; the HC found no legal error.
• Section 5(i) HMA mandates that neither party have a living spouse at the time of marriage; violation renders marriage void ab initio under Section 11.
• A void marriage creates no legal matrimonial relationship; Section 125 CrPC maintenance cannot flow from such a marriage.
• This ruling contrasts with cases where a woman is deceived about her partner's marital status — good-faith victims of bigamy may still claim DV Act protection under "relationship in nature of marriage" doctrine.
• Informal separation without legal divorce is the root systemic problem; fast-tracked family courts are the structural remedy no ruling can replace.