The main legal point established in the judgment is that a woman in the position of the appellant, though not the legally wedded wife, can be treated as the 'wife' for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, especially when the respondent suppressed his prior marriage and cohabited with the appellant as a married couple.

A. K. SIKRI, J. :- The appellant herein is duped by the respondent. The respondent, who was already married to one Amarjeet Kaur suppressing this marriage and pretending that he was still a bachelor, married the appellant on 11-12-1977, according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Jalandhar. Both of them lived as husband and wife for number of years at the matrimonial house, i.e. A-447, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Two daughters were born out of this wedlock, on 18-2-1981 and 31-5-83 respectively. According to the appellant, she decided to complete her B. A. Degree, which she had left incomplete earlier before marriage. Therefore, she picked up her studies again. In April 1991, she went to Paghwara, Punjab, to take the exams. On 13-6-1991 when she returned, her mother-in-law did not allow her to go inside the house. She was, thus, deserted by the respondent. At that time she came to know that the respondent was already married to Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.

2. The appellant did not swallow this insult to her. She filed a criminal case against the respondent for committing bigamy (in this case the respondent has been convicted). She also filed a petition under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (in short the 'Act') claiming recovery of maintenance and right of residence from the respondent. She claimed decree of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month plus rent of residence and also prayed for necessary charge on the matrimonial house A-447, Defence Colony for securing the right of maintenance. The petition was filed as an indigent person under Order XXXIII, Rule 1, C. P. C., which was allowed.

3. This petition was originally filed in this Court. On 28-8-1997, order was passed directing the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner. Vide order dated 2-3-2000, the Court ordered for payment of a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant by way of interim maintenance. Thereafter, vide order dated 28-4-2000 further maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- was allowed. Application for interim maintenance was ultimately decided by the Court vide order dated 11-1-2002 granting interim maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month. The quantum was challenged by the appellant by filing appeal before the Division Bench, which enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 700/- from 1-8-2003 vide orders dated 25-7-2002. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, this interim maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 1,500/- per month with effect from May 2004 till the disposal of the suit, vide order dated 21-4-2004.

4. On enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts, the petition was transferred to the District Court on 27-11-2003. The respondent did not file the written statement and ultimately vide order dated 11-10-2004 the right of the respondent to file the written statement was struck off. The appellant appeared in the witness-box and submitted her affidavit by way of evidence (Ex. PW1/1). She also proved various other documents showing financial status of the respondent as well as the appellant's mother-in-law. The respondent did not lead any evidence.

5. The learned trial Court, however, has dismissed the petition of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 13-7-2005. This petition is not dismissed on merits but on the ground that such a petition filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Act claiming maintenance from the respondent is not maintainable as the appellant is not a legally wedded "wife" of the respondent. This finding is arrived at by the learned trial Court on the premise that since the respondent was already married to one Amarjeet Kaur, his second marriage with the appellant was clearly void and of no legal effect. It is held that under Section 18 of the Act, petition can be filed by a legally wedded wife and not by a person who is not lawfully married and for this conclusion the learned trial Court has drawn the support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Savitab