Deepak Gupta, J.

This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, where by the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC') for grant of maintenance was dismissed only on the ground that the Petitioner who claims to be the wife had failed to prove that her earlier marriage had been dissolved by formal decree of divorce.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Petitioner Smt. Motim Bai Borkar was admittedly married to one Chunniram Meshram. One daughter was born out of the wedlock. Petitioner Motim bai had claimed that this marriage between her and Chunniram has been dissolved by customary divorce on 15.10.2002. Respondent Arjun Singh Borkar was also married to one Kala Bai who died on 27.1.2000.

3. It is not disputed that marriage was solemnized between Arjun Singh and Motim Bai on 9.6.2003. This marriage was performed by having public function. The husband and wife lived together for two years. Thereafter in the year 2006, the wife made a complaint that the husband used to beat her. In December, 2006, she also a complained that her husband had beaten her and turned her out of the house. Motim Bai claiming to be the wife of Arjun Singh filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. This petition was contested mainly on the ground that the marriage between Arjun Singh and Motim Bai was not a valid marriage since Motim Bai had not obtained a valid divorce from her first husband Chunniram. The learned trial Court held the issue in favour of the husband and came to the conclusion that since no divorce has been proved by wife from first husband therefore, she could not claim maintenance.

4. It is argued by Shri P.P. Sahu that Motim Bai and her first husband Chunniram had divorced each other by mutual consent as per custom, however, no such custom is proved on record. Unless custom is proved, customary divorce cannot be accepted to be legal.

5. Having held so, I am clearly of the view that Arjun Singh, the second husband cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife. The reason is that he married Motim Bai knowing fully well that she had a female child from earlier husband and at the time when he got married, he did not ask to produce a decree of divorce and at that time he was willing to marry her probably on oral submission that she had obtained a divorce. It is not a case where the wife had hoodwinked the husband.

6. The Apex Court in (2014) 1 SCC 188 (Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse) has held as follows:

13.3. Thirdly, in such cases, purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C. While dealing with the application of destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalized sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the Constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of the social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.

14. Of late, in this very direction, it is emphasized that the courts have to adopt different approaches in "social justice adjudication", which is also known as "social context adjudication" as mere "adversarial approach" may not be very appropriate. There are number of social justice legislations giving special protection and benefits to vulnerable groups in the society. Prof. Madhava Menon describes it eloquently:

"It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that 'soc