Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Court laid down that the wife of a second marriage is entitled to maintenance in case the husband has duped her to get married. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2- judge Bench consisting of Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice AK Sikri. 

Facts   

• There was a delay of 63 days in filing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) and a further delay of 11 days in refiling it, but the Supreme Court condoned the delay. 
• The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the award of maintenance to respondent No.1 (wife) at Rs.1000 per month and to respondent No.2 (daughter) at Rs.500 per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• Respondent No.1 claimed that she married the petitioner on 10th February, 2005, at Devgad Temple as per Hindu rites and lived with him. Initially, the petitioner treated her well, but after three months, a woman named Shobha claimed to be his wife, leading to disputes. 
• Respondent No.1 alleged that the petitioner subjected her to mental and physical abuse, especially after she became pregnant. He doubted the paternity of the child and insisted on abortion. Due to unbearable harassment, she left and stayed with her parents, later giving birth to respondent No.2 on 28th November , 2005. 
• The petitioner denied any marriage with respondent No.1, claiming she was trying to blackmail him. He asserted that he had been married to Shobha since 1979 and had two children with her. 
• The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) found in favor of the respondents, concluding that respondent No.1 was married to the petitioner, cohabited with him, and gave birth to respondent No.2, his biological daughter. These findings were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. 
• The JMFC determined that the petitioner intentionally concealed his first marriage while marrying respondent No.1 and cohabiting with her as his wife. Evidence, including marriage photographs, supported the respondent’s claims. 
• The petitioner argued that since his marriage with respondent No.1 was void under the Hindu Marriage Act due to the subsistence of his first marriage, she could not be considered a "wife" under Section 125 CrPC and was not entitled to maintenance. 
• The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that a woman married to a man already having a living spouse is not a legally wedded wife and thus cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. 
• The petitioner conceded that he had an obligation to maintain respondent No.2 but disputed any legal obligation towards respondent No.1, arguing that she was not a legally wedded wife.

Issues Involved

• Whether the wife of second marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC? 

Observations 

• The Court in this case referred to the judgment of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr.(2010) wherein the Court held that the term “wife” should be interpreted in a broadest possible manner.  
  • This would also include a case where a man and woman has been living together for a reasonably long period of time and strict proof of marriage is not a pre condition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. 
• In the present case, respondent No.1 has provided strong and cogent evidence proving that she was married to the petitioner, distinguishing this case from the Chanmuniya case, where the presumption of marriage was based on long-term cohabitation. 
• The petitioner had misled respondent No.1 by concealing his first marriage and falsely claiming to be single and eligible to marry her. 
• The Supreme Court held that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongdoing by arguing that respondent No.1 is not his “legally wedded wife” and thus not entitled to maintenance under Section 125, CrPC. 
• The Court distinguished the Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhay & Anr. (1988) and Savitaben  Somabai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) cases, where women knowingly married men who already had existing marriages, making their second marriages void. 
• The judgments in Adhav and Savitaben apply only when a woman knowingly enters into a marriage with a man who has a subsisting first marriage. However, these judgments do not apply when a woman is deceived into marrying a man who fraudulently conceals his first marriage. 
• The Court emphasized that maintenance laws are intended to empower destitute individuals and promote social justice, equality, and dignity. 
• Courts must shift from an adversarial approach to a social context adjudication approach while dealing with maintenance cases to uphold the spirit of the law. 
• The mischief rule of interpretation applies here, meaning that courts should interpret statutes in a way that prevents the harm the law seeks to address, ensuring that fraudulent husbands do not escape liability. 
• The Court ruled that a woman deceived into marriage should be treated as a legally wedded wife at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, to prevent injustice and uphold the legislative intent. 

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a woman who has been deceived into a marriage by a man concealing his first marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, ensuring protection against fraud and injustice. 
• This judgment upholds the principles of social justice, dignity, and equality, preventing fraudulent husbands from exploiting legal technicalities to deny financial support to women who were misled into marriage.