Back
RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA
Bhagwandas – Appellant
Versus
Panpati Shah – Respondent
No, duration of marriage (including 15 years) does not entitle a wife to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if she is not a legally wedded wife. (!) [27000405600016][27000405600017] (!) (!) [27000405600019]
A woman is not entitled to maintenance if her marriage is void because she had a subsisting prior marriage without valid divorce, making her a "second wife" excluded from the definition of "wife." Customary or agreement-based divorce is invalid; only court-granted divorce is recognized. [27000405600003][27000405600016][27000405600017] (!) (!) (!) (!)
Cohabitation as husband-wife does not create a presumption of valid marriage if both parties have living spouses from prior subsisting marriages. Strict proof of lawful marriage is required, and a void marriage under Hindu law (due to living spouse) disqualifies maintenance claims. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Section 125 Cr.P.C. aims at social justice for destitute wives but limits "wife" to legally wedded or validly divorced women who have not remarried; second wives in void marriages are not covered. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [27000405600018][27000405600019]
ORDER
1. This criminal Revision has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.3.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Singrauli, in MJCR No. 120/2018 whereby the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife has been partly allowed and the petitioner/husband has been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of application dated 27.9.2018.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife has been solemnized on 29.3.2017 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Amlori Shishu Mandir under the Mukhya Mantri Kanya Daan Yojana. Since the date of marriage, petitioner started to make pressure on the respondent to bring dowry from her parental home and when she denied, petitioner started to torture her and lastly he oust the respondent from his house on 11.8.2017. When no ground was left, respondent/wife file an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Singrauli (M.P.) as MJCR No. 120/2018 which was partly allowed vide order dated 25.3.2022, directing the petitioner/husband to pay Rs.10,000/- p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
