S.125 CrPC | Objective Of Provision Defeated As Exploitation Of Women Continues Due To Legal Loopholes: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court, while rejecting a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC, filed by a woman whose marriage was void due to the subsistence of her and her husband's earlier marriage, described the situation as “unfortunate” and expressed sympathy for the petitioner.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted the legal loopholes that defeated the objective of the provision, and suggested other possible remedies available to the petitioner, like seeking compensation under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act.

“This Court finds it unfortunate that many women, especially those belonging to the poorer strata of society, are routinely exploited in this manner, and the legal loopholes allow the offending parties to slip away unscathed. In spite of the social justice factor embedded in Section 125 Cr.P.C., the objective of the provision is defeated as it fails to arrest the exploitation which it seeks to curb.”

The Court was hearing a challenge against the Family Court's order that rejected the petitioner's application seeking maintenance from her husband under Section 125, CrPC. At the time of their marriage, both the petitioner and the respondent had living spouses. Hence, owing to the non-registration of their marriage, they were living separately.

The petition was opposed by the husband on the ground that since the marriage was void, the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and could not demand maintenance under the provision.

After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that the provision was a tool for social justice to ensure that women and children were protected from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution. Hence, while adjudicating matters under this provision, this cause of social justice had to be furthered.

At the same time, the Court observed, one needed to be a “legally wedded wife” for the provision to be applicable.

“…a “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would include a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried…even if a woman does not have the legal status of a wife, she is brought within the inclusive definition of “wife” in order to maintain consistency with the object of the statutory provision. However, a second wife whose marriage is void on account of survival of the first marriage, would not be a legally wedded wife, and therefore she would not be entitled to maintenance under this provision.”

Considering that at the time of the second marriage, the earlier spouses of the petitioner and the respondent were living, the Court held that the petitioner did not attain the status of “legally wedded wife” of the respondent.

While holding that “wife” under Section 125, CrPC did not envisage a situation where both parties had living spouses, it was decided that the petitioner was not entitled to get maintenance from him.

While sympathising with the petitioner and acknowledging the legal loophole that defeated the provision's objective of social justice, the Court mentioned other remedies available to the petitioner, like under Section 22 of the DV Act.

Accordingly, the petitioner was disposed of.

Title: Smt. Guddi Bai v Raghuveer

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 163

Click Here To Read/Download Order

write more lceqrly without changing any content

Title: Smt. Guddi Bai v Raghuveer

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 163

Click Here To Read/Download Order