A husband who enters into a marriage with a woman with full knowledge of his earlier marriage cannot later raise the validity of the marriage to deny the claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:
Maintenance Claim - Dissolution of Marriage - The court dismissed the revision and upheld the maintenance claim, ruling that the petitioner cannot raise the validity of the earlier dissolution marriage of the first respondent with her first husband to defeat the maintenance claim of the first and the second respondents.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner and the first respondent entered into a second marriage. The first respondent filed a maintenance claim against the petitioner, alleging cruelty and refusal to provide maintenance for her and their child.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's contention that the first respondent had no right to claim maintenance due to the non-dissolution of her earlier marriage was not valid. The court upheld the maintenance claim, citing the petitioner's knowledge of the first respondent's earlier marriage dissolution and subsequent marriage.
Issues: The main issue was whether the first respondent had the right to claim maintenance from the petitioner despite the non-dissolution of her earlier marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that if a husband enters into a marriage with a woman with full knowledge of his earlier marriage, he cannot later raise the validity of the marriage to deny the claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, upholding the maintenance claim of the first and second respondents.

ORDER

This petition is filed to set aside the order passed in the above M.C.No.40 of 2015, dated 13.05.2019, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichirappalli.

2.The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 10.04.2011 and it was second marriage for the petitioner and the first respondent. Out of the wedlock, the second respondent was born on 07.03.2012. At the time of marriage, the parents of the first respondent presided 50 sovereigns of gold jewels to their daughter, 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to their son-in-law/petitioner and Rs.5,00,000/- as marriage expenses besides Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry on the date of marriage. After the marriage, 42 sovereigns of gold jewels and pattu sarees were received by the petitioner for keeping in his custody. Since the first respondent took long leave of one month for marriage, she was removed from service of the bank. On knowing the same, the petitioner ignored the first respondent stating that he married her only as she worked in bank. When the first respondent became pregnant, she was compelled to cause miscarriage by the petitioner. Thereafter, the parents of the first respondent gave Rs.1,00,000/- as cash to the petitioner. The parents of the first respondent prodded the petitioner to heed to their daughter. When the same was refused by the petitioner, the parents of the first respondent took her to Trichy. The petitioner had come to see the first respondent at her parents house only for five times, before the birth of child. The petitioner also pressed her stomach, while she was pregnant to cause miscarriage. Even in the Jamaath they informed to give divorce. But the first respondent and her parents refused to accept the divorce and they tried to solve the problem through relatives and took effective steps for reunion of the first respondent with the petitioner. The petitioner also treated her as a slave and he also suspected the fidelity of the first respondent. On 05.02.2013, the petitioner's parents throw the bag of the first respondent's parents and dresses of the first respondent on street and pushed them out of home and locked the house and left. So the first respondent and her parents came to Trichy. At that time, all the gold ornaments and other household articles were in the custody of the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent had filed a case in M.C.No.100 of 2013 and a suit in O.S.No.747 of 2013, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichy. In which, the maintenance case was compromised in Lok Adalat on 31.08.2013. Subsequently, the petitioner committed cruelty against her and threatened to kill her. All the efforts taken by the first respondent's parents for reunion went in vain. Again, the parents of the first respondent took her to Trichy. Thereafter, the first respondent lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Jeeyapuram on 06.03.2015 against the petitioner and his family members and the complaint was not received by the said Police Station. Thereafter, the first respondent gave complaint to the Superintendent of Police and also sent by registered Post and it was forwarded to Jeeyapuram Police Station and on enquiry, the petitioner refused to live with the first respondent. The first respondent also filed petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.6651 of 2015 to give direction to take action in respect of her complaint as she is willing to live with the petitioner. Hence, this court referred the matter to Mediation and it ended in vain as the petitioner refused to cohabit with the first respondent. The second respondent was studying L.K.G., in private school at Trichy. The respondents are living with the age old parents of the first respondent. Thereafter, in view of the above strained relationship, the first respondent/wife filed the maintenance claim against the petitioner/husband in M.C.No.40 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document