Important pointThe legislative intent being clearly reflected in Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no scope for enlarging the scope by introducing any artificial definition to include woman not lawfully married in the expression ‘wife’ and even if it is accepted that husband was treating her as his wife it is the intention of the legislature which is relevant and not the attitude of the party.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 125 and 127—Scope and ambit—Maintenance to wife—Appellant’s claim that she was married to respondent 2 according to customary rites—Respondent opposed maintenance application taking the stand that appellant was not his legally married wife and the child was not his son—He claimed that he was married to one ‘V’ more than 22 years back and two children were born—Trial Court granted maintenance to both appellant and the child—Documents produced by respondent 2 substantiate his plea of earlier marriage—Expression ‘wife’ as per Section 125 of the Code refers to only legally married wife—Whether appellant, not a legally wedded wife was entitled to claim maintenance—(No)—Whether award of Rs. 500/- in favour of the child was justified—(No)—Amount of maintenance to the child can be enhanced to Rs. 850/-.
       Held : The provision is enacted for social justice and specially to protect women and children as also old and infirm poor parents and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’). The provision gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves. Its provisions are applicable and enforceable whatever may be personal law by which the persons concerned are governed. (Para 9)
       The sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfill. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause-the cause of the derelicts. (Para 14)
       It may be noted at this juncture that the legislature considered it necessary to include within the scope of the provision an illegitimate child but it has not done so with respect to woman not lawfully married. However, desirable it may be, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant to take note of the plight of the unfortunate woman, the legislative intent being clearly reflected in Section 125 of the Code, there is no scope for enlarging its scope by introducing any artificial definition to include woman not lawfully married in the expression ‘wife’. (Para 18)
       That brings us to the other question relating to adequacy of the quantum of maintenance awarded to the child. It is not in dispute that when the Claim Petition was filed, Rs. 500/- was claimed as maintenance as that was the maximum amount which could have been granted because of the unamended Section 125. But presently, there is no such limitation in view of the amendment as referred to above. (Para 22)
       Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that there was no amendment made to the Claim Petition seeking enhancement. We find that this is a too technical plea. As a matter of fact, Section 127 of the Code permits increase in the quantum. The application for maintenance was filed on 1.9.1995. The order granting maintenance was passed by the learned JMFC on 31.7.1999. The High Court enhanced the quantum awarded to the child from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 500/- with effect from the order passed by learned JMFC. No dispute has been raised regarding enhancement and in fact there was a concession to the prayer for enhancement before the High Court as recorded in the impugned judgment. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we feel that the amount of maintenance to the child can be enhanced to Rs. 850/- with effect from today. (Para 23)
       Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that as a humanitarian gesture, the respondent No. 2 agrees to pay a lump-sum amount to settle the dispute. In case the respondent No. 2 pays a sum of rupees two lakhs only within a period of four months to the appellant, the same shall be in full and final settlement of the claim of respondent No. 3 for maintenance. While fixing the quantum we have taken note of the likely return as interest in case it is invested in fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank, and the likely increase in the quantum of maintenance till respondent No. 3 attains majority. (Para 24)

Judgement Key Points

The Supreme Court held that the expression "wife" under Section 125 CrPC refers only to a legally wedded wife, excluding a woman not lawfully married, regardless of the man's conduct or treatment of her as his wife. (!) [1000266830014][1000266830015][1000266830017]
Section 125 CrPC is enacted for social justice to protect women, children, and infirm parents, fulfilling a fundamental duty to maintain dependents unable to support themselves, applicable irrespective of personal law. [1000266830008][1000266830009]
Legislative intent explicitly includes illegitimate children within Section 125 but not women not lawfully married; courts cannot expand the scope of "wife" through artificial interpretation. [1000266830017]
A marriage that is a nullity (e.g., with a person having a living spouse) does not entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. [1000266830014]
Strict proof of valid marriage is required; claims of fraud, misrepresentation, or unawareness of prior marriage do not override the legal requirement, and estoppel does not apply. [1000266830016]
Trial court granted maintenance to appellant (claimed wife) and child; sessions court remanded; on re-adjudication, maintenance awarded again; High Court denied maintenance to appellant (not legally wedded) but upheld/enhanced for child. (!) [1000266830004]
Supreme Court affirmed High Court: appellant not entitled to maintenance as not legally wedded wife, based on evidence of respondent's prior marriage (documents like voters list, ration card). [1000266830004][1000266830019][100026683

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. A brief reference to the factual position would suffice because essentially the dispute has to be adjudicated with reference to scope and ambit of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’).

3. The case at hand according to appellant is a classic example of the inadequacies of law in protecting a woman who unwittingly entered into relationships with a married man.

4. Factual position as projected by the appellant is as follows:—

Appellant claims that she was married to respondent No. 2 some time in 1994 according to the customary rites and rituals of their caste. Though initially, the respondent No. 2 treated her nicely, thereafter he started ill-treating her and she was subjected to mental and physical torture. On enquiry about the reason for such a sudden change in his behaviour, the appellant came to know that respondent No. 2 had developed illicit relationship with a lady named Veenaben. During the period the appellant stayed with the respondent, she became pregnant and subsequently, a child was born. As respondent No. 2 neglected the appellant and the child born, an application in terms of Section 125 of the Code was filed claiming maintenance. The application was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (hereinafter referred to as the ‘JMFC’) Himmatnagar. Respondent No. 2 opposed the application by filing written statements taking the stand that the appellant was not his legally married wife and the child (respondent No. 3) was not his son. He also denied having developed illicit relationship with Veenaben. He claimed that actually she was married to him more than 22 years back and two children were born. Their son Hament had died in the road accident in July 1990. In the Claim Petition name of Veenaben was mentioned as the legal heir and in the Voters List, Ration Card and Provident Fund records, Veenaben was shown as the wife of respondent No. 2. On 23.6.1998 learned JMFC allowed the Claim Petition and granted maintenance. A criminal revision was filed by respondent No. 2 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabaakatha; Dist. Himmatnagar, who by his order dated 26.11.1998 set aside the judgment dated 23.6.1998 as passed by the learned JMFC and remanded the matter to the trial Court for adjudication afresh after affording an opportunity to respondent No. 2 to cross examine the witnesses of the appellant. By order dated 31.7.1999, learned JMFC after considering the matter afresh awarded maintenance to both the appellant and the child.

5. A Criminal Revision Application No. 65/95 was filed by respondent No. 2 against the order dated 31.7.1999. By order dated 12.7.2001, learned Additional District Judge, Sabarkatha dismissed the application. The respondent No. 2 filed a Special Criminal Application No. 568/2001 before the Gujarat High Court which by the impugned order held that the appellant was not legally wedded wife of respondent No. 2. Reliance was placed on documents filed by respondent No. 2 to conclude that before the alleged date of marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 2, the latter was already married to Veenaben with reference to the documents produced. However, maintenance granted to the child (respondent No. 3) was maintained and amount as awarded to him i.e. Rs. 350/- was enhanced to Rs. 500/-. A direction was also given to pay the enhanced amount from the date of order of the learned JMFC i.e. 31.7.1999.

6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has taken a too technical view in the matter. Strict proof about a valid marriage is not the sine qua non for getting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. The documents produced by respondent No. 2 to substantiate the plea of earlier marriage with Veenaben should not have been given primacy over the clinching evidence adduced by the appellant to show that she was unaware of the alleged marriage. Si

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 442

Cases Referred (5)