Dismissed

Achchhelal v. Smt. Ashrafi

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2026FAPL/100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal against Family Court decree granting a wife Rs. 2,000 monthly maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Appellant denied the marriage, relying on an isolated cross-examination line. The High Court found documentary evidence established the marriage and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

None granted; appeal dismissed, Family Court maintenance award of Rs. 2,000 per month stands affirmed.

Achchhelal vs Smt. Ashrafi — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL No. - 100 of 2025

Achchhelal

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Smt. Ashrafi .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Raj Priya Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Singh, Vijay Bahadur Singh

¶7

Court No. - 5

¶8

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Raj Priya Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for opposite party.

¶10

By means of present first appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order and decree dated 22.04.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar in a matter U/S 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in the plaint preferred by the opposite party, she had stated that she was married to the appellant in 1988 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals and accordingly after marriage, she started living in the matrimonial home along with the appellant. It is stated that initially his behaviour and attitude were favourable towards the plaintiff but unfortunately they did not have any offspring out of the said wedding and it is due to this reason that the appellant started mistreating the plaintiff and he further started physical and mental torture of the plaintiff and also started indulging in drinking subjecting the plaintiff to torture after in a state of drunkenness. It is in 1988 that he assaulted the plaintiff and threw her out of the matrimonial home and accordingly she did not have anywhere else except started living with her brother.

¶12

It was further stated that opposite party is an illiterate lady and her parents had also died and and accordingly was a destitute having nowhere

¶13

FAPL No. 100 of 2025

¶14

¶15

else to go and no one to depend upon for her maintenance. On the other hand, she has stated that appellant is earning Rs. 5,000/- from agriculture and agricultural related activities and accordingly in the aforesaid circumstances has sought maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month.

¶16

The application of the opposite party was contested by the appellant who had put in appearance. In his objections, he has stated that the opposite party is not the wife of the appellant and they have never been married and it is on this account he had contested the claim of the opposite party. It is during the proceedings, the opposite party was subjected to cross examination. In the said cross examination, she has stated that the appellant had kept the opposite party without marrying her and there is a sentence which says that "she had never been married" but subsequently she has stated it is wrong to say that she has never been married to the appellant. The appellant has vehemently relied upon the cross examination of opposite party as P.W. 1 to content that even the opposite party has stated that she was never married to the appellant and consequently no occasion to would arise for grant of maintenance when the opposite party herself has concealed the fact that she has never married to appellant.

¶17

Learned counsel for opposite party has vehemently contested the case and submitted that the aspect of the matter as to whether the appellant and the opposite party was married was decided by the trial court as Issue No. 1.

¶18

It has been submitted that before the trial court sufficient oral and substantial evidence were available wherein a finding has been returned that the appellant and the opposite party were duly married in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals. He has submitted that copy of the Kutumb Register, Voter-List as per the Panchayat Election Rules, 1999, the copy of Aadhar Card and a certificate issued by the District Magistrate were some of the documents produced by the opposite party to contend that they were husband and wife inasmuch as in all these documents the opposite party has been recorded to be the wife of the appellant. Accordingly, a prayer has been for dismissal of the appeal.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for rival parties and perused the record.

¶20

FAPL No. 100 of 2025

¶21

¶22

The present proceedings have arisen U/S 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 whereby the opposite party has claimed maintenance from the appellant as her husband. As per the opposite party, the appellant and the opposite party were married sometimes in 1988 and after spending 10 years in matrimony, the opposite party was thrown out of her matrimonial home and accordingly had moved an application for maintenance. The appellant had denied the said wedding. While on the other hand the opposite party has filed several documents indicating that they were legally married on the basis of which maintenance was sought.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant has merely contended and contested the impugned order on the ground that the opposite party was never married to the appellant and further tried to demonstrate that he was married to another lady. The said issue was formulated as Issue no. 1 wherein the trial court has carefully examined number of documents filed by the opposite party including the Kutumb Register, the Voter-List as per Panchayat Election Rules, 199, copy of Aadhar Card and the certificate of the District Magistrate.

¶24

In view of all these above documents, the appellant has been indicated to be husband of the opposite party and it is on the aforesaid unimpeachable evidence that the trial court had returned a finding that the appellant is the husband of the opposite party and consequently he has allowed the application granting maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of the opposite party.

¶25

We have carefully examined statement of opposite party which has been annexed along with this appeal, and find that though there is a small sentence where she has stated that "she has never been married" but the said sentence has to be read in context with the entire statement recorded during cross examination. From the said statement, it is clear that she had initially started living with Achchhelal and was not married initially and probably the marriage was conducted only subsequently.

¶26

Apart from the above, she has categorically stated that it is wrong to allege that she was never married to Achchhelal then unequivocal statement clearly indicates what was intended to be stated by the opposite party which is that she is the wife of Achchhelal. Accordingly, on the

¶27

FAPL No. 100 of 2025

¶28

¶29

basis of documentary evidence adduced by the opposite party as well as her cross examination recorded during the said trial and also placing reliance on the affidavit filed by her during the trial, we find that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court returning a finding that the appellant and the opposite party were duly married and were husband and wife. She was certainly entitled to receive maintenance under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

¶30

In light of the above, we do not find any ground for interference, the appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶31

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶32

April 3, 2026

¶33

Ravi/

¶34

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Achchhelal v. Smt. Ashrafi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achchhelal v. Smt. Ashrafi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Asha Rani vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Gramin Jalapoorti Vibhag Lko. and Another

U.O.I. Thru.the Secy. Ministry of Defence,Deptt. of Defence Production and Supplies and 3 Ors. vs Rakesh Singh

Kuldip Singh Sethi vs State of U.P. Thru. the Chief Secy. Lko. and 2 Others

Soni and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi and 4 Others vs No 692650 R Mwo (Hfo) Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Retd)

No. 13838612 Ex Sep Bhopal Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others