The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad held that a woman cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. despite long cohabitation if her first marriage is subsisting. In Smt. Madhu @ Aruna Bhajpai vs. State of U.P. & Another, the Court found that the revisionist’s first marriage was never legally dissolved. Consequently, her subsequent marriage was void ab initio under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court ruled that the term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. strictly means a legally wedded wife and cannot be extended to relationships arising from void marriages. Distinguishing Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, the Court noted that unlike that case, the revisionist was fully aware of her subsisting first marriage. Upholding the Family Court’s order, the revision was dismissed, reaffirming that cohabitation or social recognition cannot override statutory requirements for a valid marriage.