The Dharwad Bench of Karnataka High Court has held that a woman who knowingly marries a man believing him to be a divorcee cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if she failed to verify whether the divorce decree had attained finality or was stayed in appeal.

Justice Geetha K.B. dismissed a revision petition filed by a woman challenging the Family Court's order denying her maintenance.

“When once it is brought to the knowledge of petitioner that respondent is a divorcee, the diligent person will make efforts to verify the genuineness of said factum; whether any appeal against the said order is filed, pending or not.

"Furthermore, even after respondent has taken\ contention that MFA No.101347/2015 is pending, petitioner has not made any efforts to plead that by suppressing pendency of said appeal or by suppressing the stay order passed in said MFA, he married her. There is no such averment either in the petition or in her affidavit evidence; and she has not deposed so in her crossexamination. Under these circumstances, when the marriage of respondent with first wife is still subsisting, respondent is not supposed to marry the petitioner,” the Court observed.

It added, “Furthermore, only if this factum of second marriage is suppressed and respondent married the petitioner; then she is entitled for maintenance. But that is not so in the present case.”

Taking note of the petitioner's educational background, the Court said that she was “worldly wise” and capable of understanding the legal status of divorce proceedings.

“The petitioner is Ph.D. holder in Kannada Philosophy. Thus, she is not an illiterate person to say that she does not know anything about these aspects. She was working as Lecturer in Hukkeri College for one year in the year 2015. Thus, she is worldly wise,” the Court noted.

The Court said that the petitioner has not made any averments in her petition, affidavit or cross-examination to show that the respondent suppressed pendency of appeal against divorce order or the stay order. It also found that the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent made her resign her job.

Distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court ruling in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188 and the Allahabad High Court's ruling in Smt. Monika @ Satyawati v. State of UP (2024), the Court said, “In both the aforesaid cases, the factum of first marriage was concealed fraudulently at the time of second marriage by the husband. However, that is not the situation in the present case.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.

Case: A vs S

REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100123 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order