IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 3513 of 2019 Sri Satyendra Nath Murmu -Vs-

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, Mr. Swakshar Kr. Mondal, Mr. Arpayan Mukherjee, Mr. Himadree Ghosh For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Aritra Bhattacharya, Mr. Suman Dutta Hearing concluded on : 06.02.2026 Judgment on : 13.02.2026 UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

1. The petitioner, Satyendra Nath Murmu, a primary school teacher, has moved this Court under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the propriety and legality of the judgment and order dated 31.08.2019, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Purulia, in Criminal Revision No. 09 of 2017. By the impugned judgment, the first Revisional Court set aside an order of dismissal dated 05.12.2016, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Purulia, in Misc. Case No. 65 of 2010, which had originally rejected / dismissed the maintenance claim of Opposite Party No. 2, Smt. Anandi Murmu, for the lack of the legal status of a "wife." Conversely, the Learned Revisional Court reversed that finding and granted maintenance in her favour.

2. The factual matrix leading to the present revision reveals that this litigation stems from a claim filed by Opposite Party No. 2 Anandi Murmu (second wife of petitioner) in 2010, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). She asserted that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 11.12.1995 via registration under the Special Marriage Act, followed by a social ceremony as per Santhal Rites on 22.02.1996. She alleged that after years of cohabitation, the petitioner subjected her to physical and mental torture and eventually deserted her.

3. The petitioner-husband countered this claim, both on the facts and jurisdictional threshold, contending that Anandi is not his "legally wedded wife" because his first marriage to one Jyotsna Rani Murmu, solemnized in1397 B.S. (1990), is still subsisting. The records indicate that this first marriage had already been judicially recognized by the parties before the Court at Bankura, in a prior judicial proceeding of Misc. Case No. 22 of 2004.

4. The Learned Trial Magistrate accepted the petitioner’s defense. He applied the law strictly. Under section 5 (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a man cannot marry a second time while his first wife is alive. Such a marriage is void from the beginning (ab initio). If the marriage is void, the woman cannot claim the status of a "wife." Admittedly, at the time of the alleged marriage with the claimant, the petitioner had a living spouse. Consequently, the second marriage was eclipsed / hit by the statutory bar of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, making it void ab initio. Following the "Strict Rule" of interpretation, the Magistrate dismissed the maintenance petition.

5. The first Revisional Court, however, reversed / set aside this finding of dismissal. Relying on the "Social Justice" approach ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Badshah v. Urmilla Badshah Godse [(2014) 1 SCC 188], the Court held that the petitioner could not take advantage of his own wrong to evade financial obligations, especially in light of prior admissions and a registered marriage certificate.

6. The core question that arises for this Court’s consideration is whether a woman who enters into a marriage with the knowledge of her husband’s prior valid marriage, is entitled to claim maintenance as a "wife" under Section 125 of the Code?

7. Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner, underscored for a strict legal interpretation of the term "wife" under Section 125 of the Code. It must be interpreted strictly to mean a "legally wedded wife." Relying thereupon, learned Counsel contended that once the Courts in Bankura judicially recognized Jyotsna Rani Murmu as the first wife, any subsequent marria