Case at a Glance
A man with an earning of ₹10 lakh a month challenged a Chennai Family Court order directing him to pay ₹1 lakh a month to a woman and ₹1.5 lakh a month to their son, arguing she knew he was already married and so, as a ‘second wife’, could not claim maintenance. The Madras High Court found that he had made her believe he was divorced, and held, following Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2013) 10 SC CK 0067, that he cannot take advantage of his own wrong. It added that strict proof of marriage is not essential under Section 125 CrPC where long, continuous cohabitation is shown, and dismissed his revision.
The woman told the Family Court that she met the man around 2014, that he proposed on 14 February 2016 after showing her a copy of a divorce, and that they married at a temple in Uthiramerur on 20 January 2020. A son was born on 15 March 2021, and he stopped visiting from June 2022. She sought maintenance for herself and the child under Section 144 BNSS (corresponding to Section 125 CrPC). The man denied any marriage or cohabitation, said she knew he was already married, and offered ₹25,000 a month for the child along with a paternity test.
The woman examined herself and produced the child’s birth certificate, Aadhaar records and photographs. The man did not step into the witness box; he only marked a sale deed showing she had bought a flat for ₹1.7 crore in 2020. By order dated 13 March 2026 in M.C. No. 415 of 2023, the Family Court, Chennai, found that he had misled her into believing he was divorced, assessed his income at ₹10 lakh a month and awarded ₹1 lakh to her and ₹1.5 lakh to the child. He filed a criminal revision.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a woman who was misled into believing that the man was divorced claim maintenance as his ‘wife’, even though his earlier marriage was subsisting, and is strict proof of marriage required?
Why the man who deceived cannot rely on his own wrong
Justice Sunder Mohan distinguished Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 03 SC CK 0058, which denies maintenance to a woman who knowingly marries a man with a subsisting marriage. Here the man had suppressed his earlier marriage by claiming to be divorced. Applying Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, the Court held that “he cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of maintenance to the respondent, taking advantage of his own wrong”. Relying on Vimala v. K. Veerasamy, (1991) 03 SC CK 0041, it added that the second-wife bar “can be applied only when the husband satisfactorily proves the subsistence of a legal and valid marriage”; the man led no evidence at all, so the Family Court’s finding of deception was not perverse.
On the standard of proof, the Court relied on Badshah and Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2010) 10 SC CK 0024 (noting that the reference in Chanmuniya to a larger Bench is pending): “strict proof of marriage is not essential” for a Section 125 claim where the relationship was continuous and the man treated her as his wife. A Karnataka High Court decision, Annapurna S. Hippargi v. Siddaram, cited on the point, was distinguished. On quantum, the flat and cars did not show a regular income, while the man’s ₹10 lakh monthly income was undisputed. The Court did notice that one paragraph of the Family Court’s order carried over a statement from an earlier 2024 order and cautioned the judge, but held that the order as a whole showed application of mind.
What the Court Actually Held
- A woman who was made to believe that the man was divorced can claim maintenance; the man cannot rely on his own suppression of an earlier marriage to defeat her claim.
- The bar against maintenance to a ‘second wife’ applies only when the husband proves a subsisting, legal and valid earlier marriage.
- Strict proof of marriage is not essential under Section 125 CrPC; long, continuous cohabitation supports a presumption of marriage.
- The revision was dismissed and the Family Court’s order awarding ₹1,00,000 a month to the woman and ₹1,50,000 a month to the child was confirmed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects women who enter relationships on a false representation of divorce from being left without support.
- It clarifies the burden: the man must prove a subsisting valid marriage to invoke the second-wife bar.
- It confirms that owning property is not the same as having a regular income for maintenance purposes.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Women Claimants
- Evidence of cohabitation such as birth certificates, Aadhaar records and photographs can establish the relationship.
- If you were told the man was divorced, the ‘second wife’ defence may not defeat your claim.
- Property owned by you does not, by itself, prove that you have a regular income.
For Counsel
- A respondent who does not enter the witness box risks having the claimant’s evidence stand unrebutted.
- Distinguish Savitaben on knowledge: it applies where the woman knowingly married a man with a living spouse.
- Rely on Badshah and Vimala on the husband’s burden and on taking advantage of one’s own wrong.
Key Takeaways
- Deception about divorce defeats the ‘second wife’ defence.
- The husband must prove a subsisting valid earlier marriage.
- Long cohabitation can raise a presumption of marriage for maintenance.
- Assets do not equal regular income.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a second wife claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
Ordinarily a woman who knowingly marries a man with a living spouse cannot, following Savitaben. But where she was misled into believing he was divorced, the Madras High Court held, following Badshah, that he cannot take advantage of his own wrong.
Does the woman have to prove a valid marriage strictly?
No. The Court held that strict proof of marriage is not essential in maintenance proceedings if a continuous relationship is shown, which supports a presumption of marriage.
How much maintenance was upheld?
₹1,00,000 a month for the woman and ₹1,50,000 a month for the child, based on the man’s undisputed income of ₹10 lakh a month.
Conclusion
In G v. A, the Madras High Court applied settled Supreme Court principles to a familiar but painful situation: a man who hid an existing marriage and then sought to use it as a shield. Maintenance law, the Court held, will not let him do that.
Practical takeaway: In maintenance cases where the man pleads an earlier marriage, insist that he prove it, and lead evidence of how the woman was told he was divorced; the burden and the equities both shift against him.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com