Wife's Prior Undissolved Marriage No Bar to S.125 CrPC Maintenance if Husband Aware; Rs. 11,000 Order Upheld: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-05-15

Husband's Plea to Overturn Maintenance Dismissed; Wife's Prior Marriage Not a Disqualifier, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court

Chandigarh: The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court's order granting Rs. 11,000 monthly maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Justice Ramandeep Singh upheld the Family Court's decision, emphasizing that a husband cannot evade his maintenance responsibility by citing the wife's prior, undissolved marriage, especially if he was likely aware of her status.

The petition, CRR(F) 696 / 2025, was filed by Karaj Singh against the order dated March 8, 2021, by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, which had also awarded Harpreet Kaur Rs. 8,800 as litigation expenses.

Background: Family Court's Maintenance Order

Harpreet Kaur (wife) had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from her husband, Karaj Singh . The couple had married on February 11, 2009. Following matrimonial disputes, the wife sought financial support. The Family Court, after considering the arguments, granted her Rs. 11,000 per month as maintenance along with litigation costs.

Husband's Challenge in High Court

Karaj Singh , represented by Advocate Sh. G.B.S. Sidhu, challenged the Family Court's order on several grounds: * The maintenance awarded was excessively high. * The wife was allegedly already married to one Baljit Singh on February 27, 2007, and had a daughter from that marriage, which was not legally dissolved at the time of her marriage to Karaj Singh . * The wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. * She was allegedly earning Rs. 9,000 per month from stitching work. * He claimed to have paid Rs. 11,00,000 to the wife's father in a separate transaction, implying this should offset maintenance.

High Court's Upholding of Maintenance

Justice Ramandeep Singh , after perusing the record and hearing the petitioner's counsel (the petition was decided ex-parte against the respondent wife to save litigation costs and judicial time), found no merit in the husband's arguments.

Purpose of Section 125 CrPC: The Court reiterated the objective behind Section 125 Cr.P.C., citing Supreme Court precedents. It noted that the provision aims to ensure that a dependent spouse and children are not reduced to destitution. The Court referred to Anju Garg and another v. Deepak Kumar Garg , where the Supreme Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice intended to protect women, children, and infirm parents, falling within the constitutional sweep of Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India.

Wife's Prior Marriage Not a Bar: Addressing the petitioner's main contention regarding the wife's previous marriage, the High Court found the Family Court's reasoning sound. The Family Court had observed that since the wife was from within the petitioner's relations, it was unlikely he was unaware of her marital status. Furthermore, the High Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. , which establish that a husband cannot deny maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that his marriage was void due to the wife's pre-existing, undissolved marriage, particularly if the husband was aware or if the wife was duped.

Alleged Lump Sum Payment Irrelevant: The High Court concurred with the Family Court's finding that the alleged payment of Rs. 11,00,000 by the husband to the wife's father, purportedly seven years before the maintenance application, was a separate transaction and could not absolve the husband of his current maintenance liability. The petitioner could avail separate legal remedies for recovery of that amount if due.

Husband's Financial Capacity: The Family Court had assessed the husband's financial capacity, noting his admission of owning 10 acres of agricultural land, even though he later claimed to have sold it. The High Court found this assessment reasonable for determining the quantum of maintenance.

Reliance on Supreme Court Guidelines: The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's comprehensive guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha regarding the determination of maintenance, including the requirement for disclosure of assets and liabilities and awarding maintenance from the date of application.

No Perversity Found in Lower Court's Order

Justice Ramandeep Singh observed that the Family Court had duly considered all submissions and material on record. The counsel for the petitioner failed to demonstrate any perversity in the impugned order that would warrant interference by the High Court.

The judgment stated: > "Perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court makes it evident that the Court below has duly considered the submissions of the petitioner as also raised herein, and the material placed on record at the time of deciding the application for maintenance... Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any perversity in the impugned order which would warrant interference by this Court."

Decision

Concluding that the petition was "bereft of any merit," the High Court dismissed Karaj Singh 's revision petition, thereby upholding the Family Court's order granting Rs. 11,000 per month as maintenance to Harpreet Kaur .

Key Takeaways

The primary object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution of dependent spouses, children, and parents.

A husband's knowledge or potential knowledge of a wife's prior undissolved marriage can weaken his plea to deny maintenance on grounds of a void second marriage.

Previous financial transactions between parties, if unrelated to matrimonial obligations, may not be considered for offsetting maintenance claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The earning capacity of the husband, including income from assets like agricultural land, is a crucial factor in determining a justifiable quantum of maintenance.