Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sou. Rakmabai Pandurang Sonavane, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 10 November 2002 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in criminal revision application no. 451 of 2001. The Additional Sessions Judge had set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sinnar, dated 19 July 2001, which awarded maintenance of Rs.500 per month to the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Sessions Judge set aside the maintenance solely on the ground that the respondent husband was already married to Anusayabai since 1966 and that marriage was subsisting when he married the petitioner, thus the petitioner was not a legally wedded wife and not entitled to maintenance. The High Court noted that the view taken by the Sessions Judge was inconsistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse. The court held that Section 125 CrPC is a welfare provision aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy. The term 'wife' includes a woman who has been living as a wife and the marriage is proved in fact, even if it is void due to a prior subsisting marriage. The court set aside the Sessions Judge's order and restored the JMFC's order granting maintenance. The court also directed the respondent to pay arrears of maintenance from the date of the JMFC order within six months.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Validity of Marriage - The court held that a woman who marries a man with a subsisting first marriage is still entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if she proves she was living as his wife. The provision is a welfare measure and does not require a legally valid marriage. The court relied on Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse to hold that the term 'wife' includes a woman who has been treated as a wife and the marriage is proved in fact. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a woman whose marriage is void due to subsistence of earlier marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 10 November 2002, and restored the order of the JMFC dated 19 July 2001 granting maintenance of Rs.500 per month to the petitioner. The respondent was directed to pay arrears of maintenance from the date of the JMFC order within six months.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not dependent on validity of marriage
- proof of marriage in fact sufficient
- wife includes woman who has been living as wife
- purposive interpretation of welfare legislation
- protection of destitute women
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 154
Writ Petition No. 105 of 2003
None for Petitioner, Mr. Kayval Shah i/b. Mr. P. B. Shah for Respondent No. 1
Sou. Rakmabai Pandurang Sonavane
Pandurang Ramkrishna Sonavane & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge setting aside maintenance awarded by the JMFC.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought restoration of the maintenance order of Rs.500 per month granted by the JMFC under Section 125 CrPC.
Filing Reason
The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the maintenance order on the ground that the petitioner was not a legally wedded wife because the respondent husband had a subsisting first marriage.
Previous Decisions
The JMFC, Sinnar, by order dated 19 July 2001, allowed the petitioner's application under Section 125 CrPC and granted maintenance of Rs.500 per month from the date of institution. The Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 10 November 2002, set aside that order.
Issues
Whether a woman whose marriage is void due to subsistence of earlier marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
Submissions/Arguments
The respondent husband argued that the marriage was void as his first wife was alive, so the petitioner was not a legally wedded wife and not entitled to maintenance.
The court noted that the Sessions Judge's view was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedents which hold that Section 125 CrPC is a welfare provision and the term 'wife' includes a woman who has been living as a wife.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 125 CrPC, a woman who marries a man with a subsisting first marriage is entitled to maintenance if she proves she was living as his wife. The provision is a welfare measure and does not require a legally valid marriage; the term 'wife' includes a woman who has been treated as a wife and the marriage is proved in fact.
Judgment Excerpts
the view taken by the learned ASJ in the making of the impugned judgment and order was not quite consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr and Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr
Section 125 CrPC is a welfare provision aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy. The term 'wife' includes a woman who has been living as a wife and the marriage is proved in fact, even if it is void due to a prior subsisting marriage.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the JMFC, Sinnar, which was allowed on 19 July 2001 granting maintenance of Rs.500 per month. The respondent filed a criminal revision application no. 451 of 2001 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, who set aside the maintenance order on 10 November 2002. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 125
- Constitution of India: 227
