Case at a Glance
A man married a woman in 2005 without telling her that he already had a living wife and two children. When she and their daughter claimed maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, he argued that she was not his legal ‘wife’ because the second marriage was void. The Supreme Court refused to let him take advantage of his own wrong, holding that a woman deceived into such a marriage is entitled to maintenance, and that the earlier rulings denying maintenance applied where the woman knew of the first marriage. The husband’s petition was dismissed and the maintenance award stood.
The respondent, whose earlier marriage had ended in divorce in 1997, married the petitioner on 10 February 2005 at a temple. He did not tell her that he had married another woman in 1979 and had two children from that marriage, and that this first marriage was subsisting. A daughter was born to the couple on 28 November 2005.
She claimed maintenance for herself and the child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Judicial Magistrate awarded Rs. 1,000 per month to her and Rs. 500 per month to the daughter; the Sessions Court affirmed, and the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) upheld the order on 28 February 2013. The husband approached the Supreme Court, arguing that because his first marriage was subsisting, the second marriage was void and the woman could not be his ‘wife’ under Section 125 — relying on Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 01 SC CK 0009 and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 03 SC CK 0058.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a woman who married a man without knowing that his first marriage was subsisting claim maintenance as his ‘wife’ under Section 125 CrPC, even though the second marriage is void in law?
Social Justice Adjudication: Why the Deceiving Husband Could Not Escape
Justice A.K. Sikri, writing for the Bench, distinguished Yamunabai and Savitaben: those decisions denied maintenance where the woman had entered the marriage knowing that the man was already married. Here, the husband had concealed his first marriage. The Court adopted a purposive interpretation of Section 125, a provision meant to prevent destitution, describing its approach as ‘social justice adjudication’ and observing that in such matters “the Court is dealing with the marginalized sections of the society.”
Applying that lens, the Court held that the husband “cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of maintenance to the respondent, taking advantage of his own wrong.” Accepting his argument, it reasoned, would reward the deception: “If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the husband for defrauding the wife.” The Court noted that the question of referring the issue to a larger Bench had been raised in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2010) 10 SC CK 0024, but found it unnecessary to await that reference on these distinct facts. The daughter’s entitlement to maintenance was not even in dispute.
What the Court Actually Held
- A woman who is married to a man who conceals his subsisting first marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC; the husband cannot rely on the invalidity of the marriage he procured by deception.
- Yamunabai and Savitaben apply where the woman knew of the first marriage; they do not protect a husband who hid it.
- Section 125 is a social justice provision and must be interpreted purposively to prevent destitution of women and children.
- Leave to appeal was declined and the husband’s petition was dismissed, leaving the maintenance awarded by the courts below intact.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects women who are deceived into bigamous marriages from being left destitute, a situation that recurs across Indian family courts.
- It is a frequently cited statement of the ‘social justice adjudication’ approach to maintenance law.
- It applies the principle that no one can take advantage of his own wrong to the law of maintenance.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Women Claiming Maintenance
- If your husband hid an earlier subsisting marriage, his argument that you are ‘not his legal wife’ may not defeat your maintenance claim.
- Collect proof of the marriage ceremony, cohabitation and the concealment (for instance, his representations about being single or divorced).
- Children of the relationship are entitled to maintenance regardless of the validity of the marriage.
For Counsel
- Plead and prove lack of knowledge of the first marriage to distinguish Yamunabai and Savitaben.
- Cite Badshah for the purposive reading of Section 125 and the bar on taking advantage of one’s own wrong.
- Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 now corresponds to Section 125 CrPC; check how courts apply Badshah under the new provision.
Key Takeaways
- Concealment of a first marriage does not let the husband escape maintenance.
- Knowledge matters: the earlier decisions denying maintenance involved women who knew of the subsisting marriage.
- Section 125 is a measure of social justice, read to prevent destitution.
- No one can benefit from his own wrong.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a second marriage during the subsistence of the first valid?
Under Hindu law such a marriage is void. But in Badshah, the Supreme Court held that where the man concealed his first marriage, he cannot use that invalidity to deny maintenance to the deceived woman.
What if the woman knew he was already married?
The Court distinguished such cases; Yamunabai and Savitaben, which denied maintenance, involved women who knew of the subsisting marriage.
How much maintenance was awarded?
The Magistrate awarded Rs. 1,000 per month to the woman and Rs. 500 per month to the daughter, which stood after the Supreme Court dismissed the husband’s petition.
Conclusion
A man who hid his first marriage tried to use that very secret to avoid maintaining the woman and child of his second. The Supreme Court refused to give him a “premium” for his deception, reading Section 125 as a tool of social justice rather than a technicality.
Practical takeaway: Where a husband pleads the invalidity of a marriage he entered by concealing an earlier one, cite Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2013) 10 SC CK 0067: the deceived wife remains entitled to maintenance.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com