Back
: Man Who Suppressed Marriage Must Pay Interim Maintenance To 'Duped' Woman
Rejects Revision, Upholds Rs 15,000 Monthly Maintenance for Woman Deceived into Marriage
The has upheld an order granting interim maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month to a woman who alleged that a man duped her into marriage by falsely representing himself as divorced, while he was still married to another woman. Justice Biswajit Palit, presiding over the criminal revision petition, found no infirmity in the 's order and directed the trial court to expedite the main maintenance proceeding.
A Relationship Born from Deception
The case traces back to when the respondent, Bina Roy, began working at the petitioner Gopi Nath Saha's garment shop, "Kanai Textiles," in Agartala. According to Bina, Saha gradually developed a relationship with her, repeatedly assuring her that he had divorced his wife, Shipra Saha. Relying on these representations, she agreed to marry him, and the marriage was allegedly solemnized at Kalighat Temple in Kolkata on . The couple lived together as husband and wife for nearly a decade until Saha abruptly deserted her in .
However, Saha's first wife, Shipra, was still alive at the time of the alleged second marriage; she died only on . Saha contended that since his marriage to Shipra subsisted until her death, any subsequent marriage during that period was , and thus Bina could not be considered a "legally wedded wife" entitled to maintenance under .
The Legal Tug-of-War: Two Conflicting Precedents
The petitioner's counsel, , heavily relied on the judgments in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005). These cases hold that the marriage of a woman with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity, and she is not entitled to maintenance under . The petitioner argued that since Saha's first wife was alive until 2020, the alleged marriage in 2012 was void, and Bina could not claim maintenance.
On the other hand, , representing Bina, invoked the 's decision in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014). In that case, the Apex Court carved out an exception: when a man dupes a woman into marriage by suppressing his existing marriage, he cannot later take advantage of his own wrong to deny maintenance. The court held that for the purpose of , such a woman must be treated as a "legally wedded wife."
Overrides Technical Voidness
The High Court found that the present case fell squarely within the Badshah exception. Justice Palit noted that Saha had admitted to spending Rs 20 lakh on the education of Bina's son, traveling with her to various places, and living together with her for years. These facts, coupled with Saha's representation to Bina that he had divorced his first wife, established a case of deception.
"He duped the respondent by suppressing the fact of his relationship with Shipra Saha as husband and wife."
The court emphasized that at the interim stage, the question of whether a valid marriage existed was not the sole determinant. What mattered was whether the woman had been led to believe in the existence of a marriage through the man's fraudulent conduct. Citing Badshah , the court adopted a of , stating that the provision aims to prevent social destitution and achieve constitutional goals of social justice.
Key Observations
The judgment highlighted the following principles:
- Application of the : Where alternative constructions are possible, the court must adopt the one that ensures the statute achieves its purpose rather than one that frustrates it.
- : A man who deceives a woman into marriage cannot later assert the marriage's invalidity to avoid maintenance.
- Distinction from Yamunabai and Savitaben : Those cases apply only when the woman marries with full knowledge of the man's prior subsisting marriage. When she is kept in the dark, the Badshah principle prevails.
"If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the husband for defrauding the wife."
Decision: Interim Maintenance Upheld, Main Petition to Be Decided Expeditiously
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the 's order granting interim maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month was legally sound. Justice Palit directed the trial court to dispose of the main maintenance petition at the earliest, without being influenced by the observations made in this order. The court also ordered a copy of the judgment to be circulated to all Family Courts across the state for guidance.
This ruling reinforces the protective scope of , ensuring that women who fall victim to marital fraud are not left without financial support while their claims are being adjudicated.
