Woman 'Concealing' Subsisting Marriage Not Entitled To Maintenance From Second Husband: Bombay High Court
A woman, who conceals her first marriage and performs a second marriage despite the subsistence of the first marriage, cannot seek maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 CrPC, held the Bombay High Court recently. Single-judge Justice Milind Sathaye in an order passed on July 16, dismissed the appeal filed by a woman, who had challenged a lower court's order which had directed...
A woman, who conceals her first marriage and performs a second marriage despite the subsistence of the first marriage, cannot seek maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 CrPC, held the Bombay High Court recently.
Single-judge Justice Milind Sathaye in an order passed on July 16, dismissed the appeal filed by a woman, who had challenged a lower court's order which had directed her 'second husband' to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 1,000 only to her son from their void marriage and no separate maintenance was ordered for her.
Aggrieved with the ruling, the woman petitioned J Sathaye's bench, which noted that the petitioner woman was already married to some other man. The judge noted that despite her first marriage's subsistence, the woman sought monthly maintenance from the second husband, with whom she had lived for only three months.
"The woman is not legally wedded wife of second husband. It is also admitted that by an order of Court of competent jurisdiction, the marriage between the parties is annulled under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for contravening conditions under Section 5(i) of Hindu Marriage Act. It has came on record that the woman cohabited with the second husband for just a few days more than 3 months. The parties have been litigating against each other thereafter. In such circumstances, it is impossible to hold that she can qualify for a person in live-in-relationship, where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time," Justice Sathaye said in the July 16 order.
More importantly, the judge noted that the petitioner woman had concealed her first marriage from the second husband, from whom she now demanding monthly maintenance through the instant plea.
"There is an element of deceit involved because the fact of the woman's earlier marriage was concealed from the second husband. In such circumstances the beneficial piece of legislation such as Section 125 of CrPC cutting across all religions and secular in nature, a party can not be permitted to take advantage of his/her own wrong. The concealment and deceit vitiates her case. In my considered view, provisions of Section 125 of CrPC which are enacted with a view to provide summary remedy to neglected wife, can not be exercised in favour of the petitioner, who has acted deceitfully," Justice Sathaye held.
With these observations, the judge dismissed her plea.
Appearance:
Advocates Sachin Dhakephalkar and Surbhi Vadhavkar appeared for the Woman.
Advocate Vikas Ambetkar represented the Second Husband.
Additional Public Prosecutor Manisha Tidke represented the State.
Case Title: JPPP vs PVP (Writ Petition 130 of 2023)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 336