On February 10, 2005, the petitioner and respondent were married at Devgad Temple, Hivargav-Pavsa, following Hindu marriage rituals. After their marriage, they lived together, but while the respondent was pregnant, a woman named Shobha arrived at their home, claiming to be the petitioner’s wife. The petitioner allegedly told the respondent that she must either accept living with Shobha or leave. Choosing to stay due to her pregnancy, the respondent suffered physical and mental abuse. The petitioner questioned the paternity of the unborn child, accused her of infidelity, and pressured her to have an abortion. Unable to endure the abuse any longer, the respondent left for her parents’ house, where she gave birth to her daughter, Shivanjali, on November 28, 2005. She later filed a maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC.
On February 28, 2013, the Bombay High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the Trial Court’s order, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1000 per month to the respondent and Rs. 500 per month to her daughter. The petitioner then challenged the High Court’s decision by filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India.
Issues before the Court
The court had to decide whether the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was legally valid and if she qualified as his lawfully wedded wife. This was important because Section 125 CrPC grants maintenance only to legally wedded or divorced wives. The court also had to determine whether the respondent was entitled to maintenance, even if the marriage was invalid, based on cohabitation and dependency.
Arguments
The petitioner denied ever being married to the respondent, claiming that she was a habitual liar attempting to blackmail him with false accusations. He also denied cohabitating with her and being the biological father of Respondent No. 2 (Shivanjali). The petitioner stated that he had been legally married to Shobha since February 17, 1979, and they had two children together. He argued that since his first marriage was still valid, his alleged marriage with the respondent was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988), he contended that a second marriage while the first one is still in effect is legally invalid, meaning the respondent could not claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
On the other hand, the respondent maintained that she was legally married to the petitioner and had lived with him, during which she faced domestic violence, physical abuse, and mental harassment. She asserted that the petitioner was Shivanjali’s biological father and, therefore, had a legal obligation to provide financial support under Section 125 CrPC. The core issues in the case revolved around the validity of the marriage, the paternity of the child, and the respondent’s right to claim maintenance.
Analysis of the Court
The Supreme Court found that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had been proven, but the petitioner had misled the respondent by hiding his first marriage. The Court ruled that under Section 125 of the CrPC, the respondent would still be considered the petitioner's wife, even though the marriage was technically void due to the first marriage. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could not escape his responsibility by taking advantage of his own deception. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, refusing to grant the petitioner any relief.
Concluding Remark
This ruling sets an important precedent for cases where a man remarries without informing his second wife about an existing marriage. The Supreme Court took a practical approach, ensuring that women who are deceived into such marriages are not left without legal protection. The Court rightly held that Section 125 CrPC should be interpreted broadly, as it is meant to protect vulnerable individuals—including destitute wives, children, and elderly parents—who rely on maintenance for survival. This judgment reinforces the social justice purpose of the law, ensuring that wronged women are not denied financial support due to the deception of their husbands.
