The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party defrauded in a marriage should be entitled to claim maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

A. K. SIKRI, J. :- The appellant is the second wife of the respondent. The respondent had put up an advertisement for marriage stating that he is a divorcee and extremely well-to-do and have a thriving business. He made the appellant believe that his salary is in four figures and that he held a diploma in Industrial and Marketing Management. It was under this impression that the appellant, who was survived by a widowed mother, married the respondent in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals on 14-10-1988. Within a few days of the marriage, the respondent threw the appellant out of the matrimonial home and filed a petition for divorce. The appellant also filed petition under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for grant of separate residence and maintenance before the trial Court being suit No. 3/96.

2. It was only during the course of the divorce proceedings that it was disclosed to the appellant that the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce from his first wife from a Court in Una, Himachal Pradesh - a Court that had no jurisdiction whatsoever to adjudicate upon the divorce matter according to the first wife. As alleged by the first wife, no valid service of the divorce proceedings had been effected on the first wife. The said ex parte decree was set aside by the Court which passed the decree on the ground that there was no valid service of summons on the first wife of the respondent herein.

3. The appellant alleges that the respondent intentionally did so, so that he could take the plea that the effect of setting aside the decree was that the first marriage revived as if there was never any divorce and consequently, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent is not a valid marriage. Accepting the plea of the respondent that the appellant is not his legally wedded wife, the said maintenance petition has been dismissed. Challenging that judgment, the present appeal is preferred.

4. The contention of the appellant is that:

(a) the respondent played fraud upon the appellant and he cannot take advantage of his own wrong. Submission is that he took ex parte decree of divorce from his first wife fraudulently on the basis of which he represented to the appellant that he was a bachelor again, being a divorcee and, therefore, competent to solemnize the marriage again.

(b) As far as the appellant is concerned, on the day when she got married with the respondent, it was a valid marriage because the respondent had divorced his first wife and was in possession of decree of divorce. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt concerning the validity of appellant's marriage to the respondent. The events which followed thereafter could not be attributed to the appellant and, therefore, the appellant cannot be denied the rights given to legally wedded wife.

(c) The respondent is estopped from refusing to give the maintenance on the ground of nullity of marriage as it is the respondent who is a wrongdoer. The appellant is a victim of cheating and fraud. The appellant even alleges that when the first wife filed the application for setting aside of ex parte decree, the respondent ensured that the said application is allowed so that marriage between the respondent and the appellant is vitiated. This intention of the respondent was clear from the fact that the respondent had already filed a petition for divorce against the appellant by that time. Therefore, he did so with the objective of avoiding of payment of maintenance to the appellant. The appellant is, thus, a victim of cheating and fraud and though it is the respondent who is the wrongdoer, he has been given the benefit of his wrong.

5. The plea of the appellant is that in a case like this, the provision of Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act are to be construed liberally when on the date of marriage the respondent was a divorcee and legible to enter into matrimonial alliance afresh, the status of the appel