Second Wife Not Necessary Party In First Wife's Maintenance Case Under Section 125 CrPC: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a second wife is neither a necessary nor a proper party in maintenance proceedings initiated by the first wife and children under Section 125 CrPC, observing that such proceedings cannot be unnecessarily widened by impleading every person claiming dependence on the husband.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while dismissing an application filed by a woman seeking impleadment in a maintenance revision petition instituted by the first wife against her husband.
The first wife had challenged a Family Court order which denied her maintenance while granting ₹10,000 each to the two children born out of the marriage.
During pendency of the proceedings, the husband remarried after obtaining a divorce decree in his favour from the Family Court.
The second wife thereafter sought to be impleaded in the maintenance proceedings, contending that she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that any order passed in the matter could adversely affect her rights and financial interests.
Opposing the plea, the first wife argued that the dispute was confined to maintenance claims between herself, the children and the husband, and no relief had been sought against the second wife.
The High Court agreed with the contention and explained the distinction between “necessary parties” and “proper parties”. It observed that a necessary party is one in whose absence no effective order can be passed, while a proper party is one whose presence is required for complete and effective adjudication of disputes.
The Court held that the second wife satisfied neither test. It observed:
“The proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are confined to the rights and obligations inter se the petitioner and the respondent, and the status or claims of the applicant, if any, do not have any direct or substantial bearing on the adjudication of such rights.”
Rejecting the contention that the second wife's financial dependence on the husband justified her impleadment, the Court observed that accepting such a plea would open the door for every dependent person to seek intervention in maintenance proceedings.
“If such a plea were to be entertained, it would open the door for every person claiming to be dependent, upon a person from whom maintenance is sought, to seek impleadment in such proceedings, which would unnecessarily enlarge the scope of what are otherwise summary proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.,” the Court said.
“Even assuming that the applicant is financially dependent upon the respondent-husband, it always remains open to the respondent to place all such relevant facts before this Court,” it added.
As such, the Court dismissed the impleadment application.
Appearance: Ms. Meera Kaura Patel (DHCLSC), Ms. Ritika Saini and Ms. Monika Chowdhary, Advocates Mr. Shailesh Chandra Jha, DHCLSC
Case title: PS v. BS
Case no.: CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 171/2024