The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a family court’s ruling denying maintenance to a woman, citing her existing marriage to another man. Justice Prem Narayan Singh, leading a single-judge bench, stressed the requirement of being a “legally wedded wife” to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. However, he suggested alternative avenues for the petitioner-woman to seek relief, such as pursuing compensation under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
“A woman, having solemnized second marriage to another person, is only entitled to get maintenance from that person, when the first marriage has been declared either null and void or she has obtained a divorce decree from her first husband… the petitioner No. 1 could not get divorce from her earlier husband/Bhagwansingh and could not file any proof of getting divorce…”, the court clarified why maintenance cannot be granted in the case after referring to recent case laws like Sangeeta Rathore v. Naresh Rathore (2023) and Rajkumar Agrawal v. Sarika (2023) decided by the single judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh itself.
The High Court declined to amend the maintenance amount granted to the daughter born from the relationship, rejecting a request in the revision petition to raise it from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000, citing the father’s current income as the rationale. However, the Court acknowledged that the daughter could pursue a reassessment of the allowance before the Family Court under Section 127 CrPC to accommodate changes in circumstances.
In dismissing the revision petitions filed by both the woman and her alleged husband under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, the Court reiterated established legal principles, drawing upon precedents such as Bhagwandas v. Panpati (2023). While acknowledging the plight of women from disadvantaged backgrounds losing their right to maintenance through no fault of their own, the Court reiterated that a woman with a living spouse would not be eligible for maintenance from her purported second husband.
The Court distinguished the case cited by the woman’s counsel, where the apex court aimed to prevent the husband from benefiting from his deception. In the case of Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188, upon which the woman relied, the husband concealed his first marriage and misled his second wife.
The petitioner contended that her first marriage occurred when she was a minor, suggesting it should be considered null and void. However, the Court emphasized that even if a bride is a minor at the time of marriage, it does not invalidate the marriage under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Furthermore, the High Court observed that the woman failed to substantiate the annulment of her first marriage conducted under Hindu Saptapadi customs. It clarified that while an illegitimate daughter may be granted maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, an illegitimate wife is not entitled to maintenance.
As per the petitioner’s account, she is a homemaker with limited education. She has been residing separately from her second husband since 2015 due to instances of domestic violence and dowry demands from her second husband and in-laws.
