A marriage contracted during the subsistence of a prior valid marriage is null and void, disqualifying the parties from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner Smt. Suparna Saha (Bardhan) has, hereby, challenged the judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C hereunder) denying maintenance allowance to the petitioner on the ground that she was not the legally married wife of the respondent since she married him during the subsistence of her past marriage with one Dulal Chandra Saha.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of this criminal revision petition may be stated as under:

Petitioner Suparna Saha (Bardhan) married Dulal Chandra Saha in the year 1996 in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. A daughter and a son were born to them within their wedlock. Said Dulal Chandra Saha, husband of the petitioner left home on 12.07.2012 deserting his petitioner wife and children. He did not even let his wife and children know about his whereabouts. At that time, petitioner met respondent Subhendu Bardhan who assured help to the petitioner to get rid of her crises. Having reposed faith in the assurance of the respondent, petitioner Suparna Saha (Bardhan) agreed to marry him. Accordingly, they got married on 12.11.2014 which was registered on 01.12.2014. After marriage they started living together in conjugal relationship. After the said marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, her former husband Dulal Chandra Saha appeared. But they were separated by a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court on 28.05.2016 in T.S. (Divorce) 11 of 2015. Two years thereafter, elder daughter of the petitioner committed suicide. The respondent then deserted the petitioner. When the petitioner contacted him over telephone, he told her that he would not come back to her but he assured to provide her monthly maintenance @Rs.10,000/-. Having received no amount of maintenance allowance from the respondent, petitioner approached the Family Court by filing a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. The respondent having received notice from the Family Court appeared and filed written objection denying the claim of the petitioner. He claimed that there was no marriage between them and the certificate of registration of marriage [Exbt.2] produced by the petitioner was a forged document. The respondent also claimed that petitioner was actually the legally married wife of Dulal Chandra Saha until their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 28.05.2016. The respondent asserted that he actually married Smt. Ratna Bardhan Dey on 07.07.1995 and he had been living with said Ratna Bardhan Dey since the date of their marriage and his son named Sraddhendu Bardhan was born to them within their wedlock. According to him, the respondent lodged a false petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. with a view to grab money from him.

4. On the basis of the assertions and denials appearing in the pleadings of the parties, the Family Court framed three issues for determination which are as under:

(i) Whether the petitioner was the legally married wife of the respondent.

(ii) Whether the respondent neglected the petitioner despite having sufficient means.

(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any maintenance allowance.

5. In the course of trial of the case, petitioner Suparna Saha (Bardhan) examined herself as PW-1, her former husband Dulal Chandra Saha as PW-2 and one Dilip Kr. Deb, her neighbour as PW-3. Respondent Subhendu Bardhan, on the other hand, examined himself as OPW-1.

Besides adducing oral evidence of three witnesses, petitioner produced the last pay certificate dated 20.12.2018 of the respondent issued from the office of the Tripura State Co-operativ