Expansive Interpretation To Be Given To Term ‘Wife’ In Maintenance Cases Where Man & Woman Live Together For Reasonably Long Period: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that a very broad and expansive interpretation is required to be given to the term ‘wife’ for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to include those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonable long period of time. The High Court also held that strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance in such cases.
The High Court was considering a Criminal Revision directed against the judgment passed under Section 125 CrPC dismissing the application for maintenance filed by the applicants (wife and minor children born out of wedlock with previous husband).
Referring to the judgment in Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Another (2011)the Single Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra said, “Adverting to the dicta of Hon’ble Supreme court in Chanmuniya (supra) it can be held that a very broad and expansive interpretation is required to be given to term ‘wife’ for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so as to include those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife a reasonable long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance in such cases. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable.”
Advocate Ashok Kumar Yadav represented the Revisionist, while Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.
Factual Background
The applicants-revisionists moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court with averments that the first applicant was initially married with the elder brother of the second respondent, from whom she bore two children who were minors at the time of filing of maintenance application. The applicant contracted a second marriage with her brother-in-law(second respondent) after the death of her husband, according to Hindu rites and rituals. Her second husband was posted in a police department at Azamgarh, and he took the applicants with him. It was alleged that given nonfulfillment of dowry, she was harassed, beaten and subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty by her second husband and in-laws.
It was the applicant’s case that the second husband contracted a bigamous marriage with another girl. When she raised a protest of remarriage of her husband, she was kicked out by the opposite party and his family members, along with her children. The applicant raised the maintenance application on the grounds that she is not a skilled woman and is unable to maintain herself and her minor children. As per the applicant, her husband is posted as a Constable in U.P. Police, having a monthly salary of around Rs 70,000, and he also possesses agricultural land, from which he earns Rs 2 lakh annually.
Reasoning
The Bench noted the admission of the second husband’s wife from the bigamous marriage that no decree of divorce was passed in respect of her marriage with him. As per the Bench, there was no legal impediment to the marriage between the applicant and the respondent husband, as the previous husband of the applicant had already died.
“Learned court below has committed legal and factual error while dismissing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the technical ground that factum of marriage of applicant No.1 and opposite party is not duly proved”, it said.
Thus, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment of the Additional Principal Judge and remitted the matter to the court below for decision afresh, treating the revisionist as the wife of the respondent husband. “Respondent No.2 shall pay Rs.8,000/- as interim monthly maintenance to applicant No.1 during the pendency of the maintenance case from today which stands restored on the strength of this revisional order”, it concluded.
Cause Title: A & 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:132193)
Appearance
Revisionist: Ashok Kumar Yadav, Prem Shankar
Opposite Party: Government Advocate, Advocate Kedar Nath Mishra