Woman Can't Seek Maintenance From Second Husband U/S 125 CrPC If Her First Marriage Survives: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with a family court order that denied maintenance to a woman on account of the subsistence of her first marriage with another man. The court took the view that a wife should be a 'legally wedded wife' for claiming maintenance under section 125 CrPC.

The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh added that the petitioner-woman will be at liberty to avail other remedies such as seeking 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.

Though another relief sought in the revision petition pertained to an increase in the quantum of maintenance awarded to the daughter born out of their relationship from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000/, the High Court refused to interfere with the maintenance amount citing the current income of her father. However, the daughter could apply before the Family Court under Section 127 CrPC [Alteration In Allowance Upon Change In Circumstances], the court added.

While dismissing the revision petitions filed by the woman as well as her alleged husband under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, the court iterated the settled law in cases like Bhagwandas v. Panpati (2023). In Bhagwandas, though the court sympathised with the plight of women hailing from the poorer strata of society getting disentitled to maintenance through no deliberate fault of their own, it was held that woman with a living spouse would be denied maintenance from her purported second husband.

The court also distinguished a case law referred by the woman's counsel where the apex court was trying to prevent the husband from taking advantage of his own wrong. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 relied upon by the woman, the husband had suppressed the factum of his first marriage and duped the second wife.

The petitioner woman had argued that her first marriage occurred when she was still a minor, and therefore, it should be treated as null and void. Even if the bride is a minor at the time of marriage, it will not make the marriage solemnised null and void under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, the court emphasised

The High Court also noted that the woman failed to prove that her first marriage which was solemnised as per Hindu Saptapadi custom was annulled later. As per Section 125 Cr.P.C, even though an illegitimate daughter can be granted maintenance, an illegitimate wife will never be entitled to maintenance, the court clarified.

According to the version of the petitioner-woman, she is a homemaker and an uneducated person. She has been residing separately from her second husband since 2015 due to domestic violence and demand of dowry from her second husband and in-laws.

Advocate Surbhi Bahal appeared for the husband. Advocate Sameer Saxena appeared for the parties seeking maintenance.

Case No: Criminal Revision No. 726 of 2017 & Criminal Revision No. 754 of 2017

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 46

Click Here To Read/ Download Order