S.125 CrPC | Woman Who Married Man Under Misrepresentation That He Was Divorced Is Entitled To Maintenance As His 'Wife': Bombay High Court

A woman who married a man under the misrepresentation that he was divorced would be treated as his 'wife' under Section 125 CrPC, and she is entitled to maintenance, the Bombay High Court has recently held.

Justice Rajesh Patil ruled "that respondent cannot be allowed to deny the maintenance claim to the Petitioner, taking advantage of his own wrong. I am of the opinion as held in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit reported in (1999)  at least for the purpose of Section 125 of CrPC, Petitioner would be treated as the 'wife' of the respondent."

According to the judgement, if the claimant woman can establish that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the court can presume them to be legally married spouses. Especially since the standard of proof to claim maintenance is more relaxed than what would be required in trials under IPC.

Facts

The petitioner claimed she married the defendant in 1989 after the defendant told her he divorced his first wife as she wasn't cohabiting with him and wasn't able to conceive a male child. In 1991, she delivered a male child. Soon after, the first wife, through mediators, requested that they all live together. Once they began living under the same roof, both women conceived and delivered male babies. The Petitioner said she was subsequently removed from the house, and in 2010, the Petitioner stopped paying any money to her.  

The second wife approached the court in 2012 under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance. The court allowed her application and granted Rs. 2,500 per month. However, the Sessions court set aside the order. The woman approached the High Court against the Sessions Court's order.

The husband claimed he never married the petitioner and had always been married only to his first wife. He further claimed he neither resided nor was he concerned with the woman's children.

Before the magistrate, the Petitioner examined herself, her two sons and two other persons involved in arranging her marriage with the man. The husband examined himself, and his first wife and a relative as witnesses.

Advocate Narayan Rokade for the Petitioner said his client was covered under the definition of 'wife' under Section 125 of the CrPC. Moreover, there was no reason the court couldn't grant maintenance in summary proceedings.

Advocate Priyanka Daga, for the respondent, submitted that the petition should be dismissed as the woman changed her stand during the trial. 

Court's Verdict

In its order, the court relied on the judgement of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & ruled in the wife's favour.

"The standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under Section 494 IPC…. Once it is admitted that the marriage procedure was followed then it is not necessary to further probe into whether the said procedure was complete as per the Hindu rites in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC," the judgement states.

The court said that the husband's argument that the Petitioner's son was born before their alleged marriage date is irrelevant as she claimed maintenance for herself. The woman was also willing for the children to undergo a DNA test to prove the respondent was their father, the court noted.

Finally, the court observed that despite the woman's claims that her husband's earnings were over Rs. 50k- Rs.60k, she was granted only Rs. 2,500 maintenance. Accordingly, the court allowed her petition and allowed her to file a fresh plea to enhance the maintenance.

Case title - Alka Bhausaheb Bhad vs Bhausaheb Ramrao Bhad

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2416 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order