Blog

Section 125 CrPC: Misrepresentation Doesn’t Deny Maintenance

Justice Rajesh Patil of the Bombay High Court recently affirmed that a woman, deceived into marriage under the false pretense of her husband being divorced, is still entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Legal Perspective

In his ruling, Justice Patil emphasized that the respondent cannot evade the responsibility of maintenance by capitalizing on his misrepresentation. Referring to the precedent in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999), he held that, at least for Section 125 of CrPC, the petitioner would be considered the ‘wife’ of the respondent.

Presumption of Marriage

According to the judgment, establishing that the claimant woman and the respondent lived together as spouses is sufficient for the court to presume a legal marital relationship. This presumption is especially applicable since the standard of proof for maintenance claims is more lenient than that required in IPC trials.

Case Background

Facts: The petitioner asserted that she married the defendant in 1989, relying on his claim of divorce from his first wife. Subsequently, she bore a male child in 1991. After the first wife’s intervention, both women lived together, giving birth to more children. However, the petitioner was later ousted, leading to her cessation of financial contributions in 2010.

Legal Battles: In 2012, the second wife sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The initial grant of Rs. 2,500 per month was overturned by the Sessions court, prompting the woman to appeal to the High Court.

Defendant’s Defense: The husband denied marrying the petitioner, maintaining his sole commitment to his first wife. He disassociated himself from the woman’s children.

Court’s Verdict

In its order, the court referred to the precedent in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and ruled in favor of the wife. The judgment emphasized a more flexible standard of proof for marriage in maintenance proceedings compared to IPC trials.

The court dismissed irrelevant arguments about the son’s birthdate and expressed the woman’s willingness to undergo a DNA test. Despite the petitioner’s claims of the husband’s substantial earnings, the court granted only Rs. 2,500 in maintenance. It permitted the woman to file a fresh plea for an enhanced maintenance amount.

Case Title: Alka Bhausaheb Bhad vs Bhausaheb Ramrao Bhad *CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2416 OF 2022