Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”), wives, children and parents, if the situation requires, can claim maintenance. Recently, Supreme Court of India, while delivering the judgment in Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr, had to decide a vital question pertaining to section 125. In this case, a situation had arisen where a woman, being unaware of the existence of man’s first marriage, was claiming maintenance. The question which the court had to decide was – whether, in such a situation, a woman can be considered as ‘wife’ for claiming maintenance under section 125 of CrCP? Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“Hindu Marriage Act”), a person cannot marry where he/she has a spouse living at the time of marriage. Because of this, the question that arose in the present case becomes important. In this post, I have summarised the important points of this case where court had upheld the maintenance claim of wife.
Facts: The Petitioner, Badshah, married Respondent no. 1, Urmila, after the divorce of the latter from her first husband. Later, it was found by the Respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was already married to one lady, Sobha. Petitioner had duped respondent No.1 by not revealing the fact of his first marriage and pretending that he was single. Even after finding this fact, the Respondent no. 1 continued to live with the Petitioner as she had become pregnant. When the ill-treatment by the Petitioner became intolerable, the Respondent no. 1 was left with no choice but to go to the house of her parents. Subsequently, Respondent no. 1 gave birth to a girl child whose biological father was Petitioner. A proceeding was consequently initiated by Respondent no.1 for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The maintenance was granted in favour of the Respondent no. 1 by the Sessions Judgment and, on appeal, the order was affirmed by the High Court.
Contentions and Findings of the Court:
So far as the Petitioner’s contention that no marriage has solemnised between him and the Respondent no.1 was concerned, it had been rejected by the courts below. Because this contention disputed factual situation and since the same had been answered affirmatively by the courts below, the Supreme Court proceeded on the assumption of a solemnised marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent no.1. There was yet another contention raised by the petitioner. It was contended that since Petitioner was married to Sobha since 1979, Respondent no. 1 cannot be treated as his ‘wife’. That is, even if marriage is solemnised between him and the Respondent no.1, the same cannot be considered as valid under Hindu Marriage Act. Hence, according to the petitioner, maintenance petition was not maintainable under Section 125 of CrPC.
Rejecting the contention of the petitioner, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that Respondent no. 1 can be considered as ‘wife’ so far as section 125 CrPC is concerned.
While reaching the decision, the Supreme Court referred to the cases of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr, (1999) 7 SCC 675 and Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr, (2011) 1 SCC 141. In the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy (supra), it was held by the court that the validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceeding under s.125 Cr.P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. That is, if it can be shown that the couple has lived together as husband and wife, there can be a presumption in favour of marriage. On the other hand, in the case of Chanmuniya (supra), it was held by the court that term ‘wife’, for the purpose of section 125 of CrPC, should be given broad an expansive interpretation. Where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for reasonably long period of time, the latter can be considered as ‘wife’ for the purpose of section 125 of CrPC. [In Chanmuniya case (supra), which was a division bench decision, the matter was referred to a larger bench].
Having discussed the above case laws and legal position, the Supreme Court, in the present case, held that at least for the purpose of section 125 CrPC, the respondent will be treated as the wife of the Petitioner. In this case, wife was not aware of the first marriage as Petitioner did not inform her of the same. Interestingly, the court discussed the ‘social purpose’ behind the enactment of section 125 CrPC and referred to the objectives of the Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution”)
“While dealing with the application of destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalized sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is the Constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India...”
Quoting a paragraph from one lecture delivered by ‘Prof. Madhava Menon’, the Supreme Court explained the concept of ‘social context adjudication’. According to the court, while dealing with cases under the provision of maintenance, ‘drift in the approach from “adversarial” litigation to social context adjudication is the need of the hour’.
On behalf of the Petitioner, reliance was also placed on case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhay & Anr, (1988) 1 SCC 530 which was followed in the case of Savitaben Somabai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 636 7. In Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav (supra), it was held by the court that a Hindu lady who married after coming into force Hindu Marriage Act, with a person who had a living lawfully wedded wife cannot be treated to be “legally wedded wife” and consequently her claim for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. According to the court, principles under these case laws are applicable only where a woman married a man with full knowledge of the first subsisting marriage:
......In such cases, she should know that second marriage with such a person is impermissible and there is an embargo under the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore she has to suffer the consequences thereof. The said judgment would not apply to those cases where a man marriages second time by keeping that lady in dark about the first surviving marriage.....
Hence, it can be concluded from above analysis that a woman, being not aware of the existence of man’s first marriage, can claim maintenance under section 125 CrPC. To mention, the court also referred to the ‘mischief rule’ and explained that themanifest purpose of Hindu Personal Laws is to achieve the social objectives of making bare minimum provisions to sustain the members of relatively small group.
No comments:
Post a Comment