SECOND WIFE IS ALSO ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C: SUPREME COURT
A bench of Justice Banumathi and Justice Bopanna has recently refused to interfere in the High Court order granting maintenance to a second wife.
In T K Surendran vs P Najima Bindu,Supreme Court stated and held "In view of the judgment of this Court reported in 2014(1) SCC 188 titled Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr., we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment affirming the award of maintenance to the respondent-wife. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed".
Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr.
2014(1)SCC 188
In Badshah vs Urmila Badshah Godse case the court ruled that a woman, duped into marrying a person who was already having a subsisting marriage, would not be affected by the Hindu Marriage Act and would be treated as a legally wedded wife for the purpose of claiming maintenance.
Court passed the judgment while dismissing an appeal by Badshah challenging the directions of the matrimonial court and Bombay High Court that he was obliged to pay every month Rs 1,000 to Urmila and Rs 500 to the daughter born of their cohabitation.
Badshah’s counsel argued that since he was already married to Sobha, the second marriage with Urmila in 2005 was void under the Hindu Marriages Act. So, he was not entitled to pay her maintenance.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
PARA 14
.............We are dealing with a situation where the marriage between the parties has been proved. However, the petitioner was already married. But he duped the respondent by suppressing the factum of alleged first marriage. On these facts, in our opinion, he cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of maintenance to the respondent, taking advantage of his own wrong. Our reasons for this course of action are stated hereinafter.
PARA 15
...............in the present case, respondent No.1 has been able to prove, by cogent and strong evidence, that the petitioner and respondent No.1 had been married each other.
PARA 16
............... A false representation was given to respondent No.1 that he was single and was competent to enter into martial tie with respondent No.1. In such circumstances, can the petitioner be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and turn around to say that respondents are not entitled to maintenance by filing the petition under Section 125,Cr.P.C. as respondent No.1 is not “legally wedded wife” of the petitioner? Our answer is in the negative. We are of the view that at least for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., respondent No.1 would be treated as the wife of the petitioner, going by the spirit of the two judgments we have reproduced above. For this reason, we are of the opinion that the judgments of this Court in Adhav and Savitaben cases would apply only in those circumstances 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. That is the only way two sets of judgments can be reconciled and harmonized.
PARA 17
............... in such cases, purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125,Cr.P.C.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. Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the Courts to advance the cause of the social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the Court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.
Therefore, a woman who is the second wife is also entitled to the right of maintenance under Section 125 when there is sufficient evidence to prove that she was unaware of her husband’s previous wedding and the second wedding was performed in accordance with the personal laws.
Thus supreme court judgment on maintenance observed that second wife is not entitled to maintenance generally but where she was unaware of husband’s first marriage she is entitled to maintenance under section 125.
Comments
Post a Comment