Owning a ₹1.7 Crore Flat and Luxury Cars Doesn’t Bar Maintenance Where Woman Has No Regular Income: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court upheld monthly maintenance despite the woman’s ₹1.7 crore flat and two luxury cars, finding she had no regular income after her child’s birth.

What Happened

The Madras High Court has upheld a Family Court order directing a man to pay ₹1,00,000 per month as maintenance to a woman who says she is his wife, and ₹1,50,000 per month for their minor son. The Court rejected his argument that the woman did not require maintenance because she owned a ₹1.70 crore flat and two luxury cars.

Justice Sunder Mohan dismissed the man’s criminal revision and confirmed the Family Court’s order. The High Court noted that the woman’s ownership of the flat and cars was not disputed. The man had proved the purchase of the flat through its sale deed.

The important question, however, was not simply whether she owned assets. The Court examined whether she had a regular source of income with which she could maintain herself.

On the evidence before it, the Court found that the woman had no regular source of income after the birth of the child. The man produced no evidence to establish otherwise. The High Court therefore found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s finding.

The Court also considered the man’s income, which the Family Court had assessed at ₹10 lakh per month. That assessment had not been disputed before the High Court. Considering the parties’ status and the woman’s lack of regular income, the Court held that ₹1,00,000 per month for her was reasonable. It also found the ₹1,50,000 monthly award for the child not unjust.

The maintenance dispute therefore turned on the evidence of income and circumstances, rather than the mere existence of valuable assets.

Background & Context

The woman filed a maintenance petition before the Family Court in Chennai. Her case was that she had met the man in 2014 and that he later represented to her that he had divorced his earlier wife. She alleged that they married at a temple in Uthiramerur on 20 January 2020 and subsequently had a son.

She further alleged that the man stopped visiting her and the child from June 2022 and that, following the child’s birth, she could not pursue her avocation and was unable to maintain herself. She had sought ₹6 lakh per month for herself and ₹4 lakh for the child, while alleging that the man earned ₹30 lakh per month.

The man denied the marriage and her account of their relationship. Among other arguments, he contended that she knew he was already married, that a second wife could not claim maintenance, and that she had sufficient means of her own. He also argued that the alleged marriage had not been strictly proved.

The Family Court, in its order dated 13 March 2026, found that the man had misled the woman into believing that he was divorced and that he could not take advantage of his own wrong. It also considered the long period of cohabitation and awarded ₹1 lakh per month to the woman and ₹1.5 lakh per month to the child.

The man challenged that order before the High Court through a criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The “Second Wife” Argument

The High Court separately considered the argument that the woman was aware that the man had previously been married.

The Court noted that although she said she initially knew of the earlier marriage, her case was that the man subsequently made her believe that he had obtained a divorce. She maintained that position during cross-examination.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188, the High Court held that a man who has misled a woman cannot rely on his own wrong to defeat a maintenance claim.

The Court reasoned that, once the woman alleged that the existence of the earlier marriage had been suppressed through a representation that the man was divorced, it was for him to establish that he had not made such a representation and that the earlier marriage continued. He did not lead evidence himself. The High Court therefore found that the Family Court’s conclusion was not perverse.

The Court also referred to Vimala v. K. Veerasamy, (1991) 2 SCC 375, in which the Supreme Court placed the burden of proving a subsisting earlier marriage on the husband.

How the Court Considered Proof of Marriage

The High Court also addressed the argument that the woman had not strictly proved a valid marriage.

It observed that Section 125 CrPC is intended as a measure of social justice for women and children and that the term “wife” has a wider meaning in this context. The Court relied on Badshah and Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141, in discussing the evidentiary approach to marriage in maintenance proceedings.

The Court noted that certain questions arising from Chanmuniya had been referred to a larger Bench and remained undecided. It nevertheless treated the later decision in Badshah as binding.

The High Court also held that the standard for proving a marriage in a Section 125 maintenance proceeding cannot simply be equated with the standard applicable when establishing the offence of bigamy. Where a relationship has continued for a long period, strict proof of marriage may not be essential for the purposes of a maintenance proceeding.

The Court relied on several pieces of evidence concerning the continuity of the relationship. These included the child’s birth certificate identifying the woman as the mother and the man as the father, the woman’s Aadhaar card identifying the man as her husband, the child’s Aadhaar card identifying him as father, and photographs indicating a long period of living together.

The High Court found that the man had not produced evidence to counter this material and that the Family Court’s conclusion was not perverse.

Importantly, the Court did not make a declaration that a valid marriage had been conclusively established for all legal purposes. Its finding concerned the woman’s entitlement to maintenance under the Section 125 framework.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: High Court of Judicature at Madras, Single Bench.
• Judge: Justice Sunder Mohan.
• Date: Reserved on 15 September 2026 and pronounced on 21 September 2026.
• Case: Criminal Revision Case No. 1116 of 2026, with Crl. M.P. No. 8894 of 2026.
• Relevant provisions: Section 438 read with Section 442 BNSS; Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS.
• Lower proceeding: Order dated 13 March 2026 of the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
• Maintenance: ₹1,00,000 per month to the woman and ₹1,50,000 per month to the child.
• Income considered: The man’s income was assessed by the Family Court at ₹10 lakh per month and was not disputed before the High Court.
• Current status: The criminal revision was dismissed and the Family Court’s maintenance order was confirmed.

Why It Matters

The order provides a concrete example of how admitted assets can be considered alongside income and other circumstances in a maintenance proceeding.

The man’s central argument was that a woman who owned a ₹1.70 crore flat and two luxury cars could not reasonably claim that she required maintenance. The High Court did not treat those assets as irrelevant. Instead, it examined the evidence concerning her actual income.

That evidence showed, in the Court’s assessment, that she had no regular source of income after the child’s birth. The man did not produce evidence to establish a contrary position. The Court then considered that finding alongside his undisputed monthly income of ₹10 lakh and the status of the parties before upholding the ₹1 lakh monthly award.

The decision therefore should not be read as holding that property or luxury vehicles can never affect a maintenance claim. Nor does it establish that a person who owns valuable assets is automatically entitled to maintenance. The finding was based on the particular evidence before the Court, including the absence of regular income and the lack of contrary evidence from the man.

For law students and practitioners, the order is also notable because it brings several recurring Section 125 issues together.

First, it illustrates the distinction between proving a marriage for a maintenance proceeding and proving a marriage for an offence such as bigamy. Second, it demonstrates the Court’s use of long cohabitation and documentary evidence to assess whether a marital relationship can be presumed for the purposes of Section 125. Third, it applies the principle from Badshah that a person cannot rely on his own alleged deception to defeat a maintenance claim.

The burden-of-proof question is particularly significant. The woman alleged that the man had represented that his earlier marriage had ended. The High Court accepted the Family Court’s finding that he had misled her and noted that he had not entered the witness box or otherwise led evidence sufficient to displace that finding.

At the same time, the case remains a single-bench decision based on its own evidentiary record. The High Court did not establish a general rule that ownership of property is irrelevant to maintenance, nor did it declare that every woman in a similar financial position would be entitled to the same amount.

The order instead shows how the Court approached the competing evidence in this particular proceeding: valuable assets on one side, an absence of regular income on the other, and an undisputed assessment of the man’s income at ₹10 lakh per month.

Closing

The Madras High Court’s decision shows why the financial position of a maintenance claimant cannot necessarily be determined by looking at assets alone.

In this case, the Court considered the woman’s ₹1.70 crore flat and two luxury cars but also examined whether those assets translated into a regular source of income. On the evidence before it, the answer was no after the child’s birth. The man did not lead evidence to establish otherwise, while his own assessed income of ₹10 lakh per month remained undisputed before the High Court.

The order also illustrates the broader evidentiary approach used in Section 125 proceedings, including the presumption of marriage from a long relationship, the burden concerning a subsisting earlier marriage, and the principle in Badshah concerning a party’s own wrong.

The decision does not make a general declaration about maintenance for people who own valuable property. It confirms the Family Court’s findings on the evidence of this case and dismisses the revision against that order.