LI Network
Published on: December 16, 2023 at 13:26 IST
The Bombay High Court, in a recent judgment, has ruled that a woman who married a man under the false pretense that he was divorced is entitled to maintenance as his ‘wife’ under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Justice Rajesh Patil emphasized that the respondent cannot deny the petitioner’s maintenance claim based on his own misrepresentation.
The judgment stated, “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, the petitioner would be treated as the ‘wife’ of the respondent.”
According to the court’s decision, if the woman can establish that she and the respondent lived together as husband and wife, the court can presume them to be legally married spouses, especially since the standard of proof for claiming maintenance is more relaxed than what is required in trials under the Indian Penal Code.
In this case, the petitioner asserted that she married the defendant in 1989 based on his claim that he had divorced his first wife.
The petitioner alleged that she was later removed from the house after living together and bearing children. In 2010, the petitioner stopped receiving any financial support. The woman approached the court in 2012 under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance.
The respondent contested the claim, asserting that he never married the petitioner and had always been married only to his first wife. He denied any involvement with the woman’s children.
The magistrate initially granted maintenance of Rs. 2,500 per month to the petitioner, but the Sessions court later set aside the order. The woman then appealed to the Bombay High Court.
The court, relying on the precedent of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit, ruled in favor of the petitioner. The judgment highlighted that the standard of proof in maintenance proceedings is not as strict as in a trial under Section 494 of the IPC.
The court noted that once the marriage procedure is admitted, further probing into whether the procedure was completed according to Hindu rites is unnecessary in proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The court also rejected the husband’s argument about the birth date of the petitioner’s son, emphasizing that the woman was claiming maintenance for herself.
The court allowed the petitioner’s plea and permitted her to file a fresh application to enhance the maintenance.
Case Title: Alka Bhausaheb Bhad vs Bhausaheb Ramrao Bhad
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2416 OF 2022