The interpretation of 'wife' under Section 125 of CrPC is not confined to legal marriages, affecting entitlement to maintenance.

ORDER

Challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in Crl.M.P.No.4185 of 2024 in M.C.No.01 of 2024 dated 26.03.2025, the petitioner wife is before this Court.

2. The petitioner herein is the petitioner before the learned Trial Court and she is the wife of the respondent. She preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking an interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner claimed before the learned Trial Court that she was a divorcee, while she was residing with her maternal family, the respondent who is serving as a Junior Assistant hailing from Achanpudur, had proposed to marry the petitioner through her brother one Ahmed, brother-in-law one Ibrahim and other relatives. Accepting his proposal, the petitioner was given in marriage to the respondent on 23.06.2021 by entering into an agreement of marriage before a notary public. During the period when they lived together, the petitioner had given her jewels and many other savings with the profound belief that she was aiding her husband in her financial implications. However, in due course of time, the respondent did not turn up and had deserted the petitioner subjecting the petitioner to untold misery and difficulties. That apart, he also did not return the money whatever he had received from the petitioner. Hence, pointing out that the respondent is serving as a Junior Assistant and is drawing a salary of Rs.80,000/-, she sought for an interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- during the pendency of the maintenance case.

3. Per contra, the counter affidavit was filed by the respondent husband before the learned Trial Court in which it was categorically contended that the petitioner is not at all his wife and they had been friends since their childhood and there was no necessity for him to borrow any money or jewellery from the petitioner and all the stories which has been alleged by the petitioner, as against the respondent are false narrations. The claim of the petitioner that she was given in marriage to the respondent before a notary public is also imaginary and she had concoted certain documents in that regard with falsity and he also categorically submitted that any marriage solemnized before a notary public is not legally valid in India and as such he is not at the duty to maintain the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the application for interim maintenance.

4. The learned Trial Court after considering the petition filed by the petitioner, counter affidavit filed by the respondent and the arguments by the respective parties had proceeded to dismiss the application for interim maintenance, recording the fact that in the event of the respondent's denial that he had ever married the petitioner at any point of time, the factum whether the petitioner is the wife of the respondent could be substantiated only after the conclusion of the trial and since Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mandates that it is only wife who is entitled to claim maintenance. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent could be decided after trial and proceeded to dismiss the petition for interim maintenance. Challenging the same, this Criminal Revision case is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamala and others vs. M.R.Mohan Kumar¹ submitted that the term “wife” as defined in Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, cannot be confined to the legally married wife alone and it could be interpreted extensively by bringi