NEW DELHI: <\/em>Justice Saurabh Banerjee<\/strong> of the Delhi High Court<\/a><\/strong> dismissed a husband\u2019s challenge against a Family Court order directing him to pay \u20b93,000 per month as maintenance<\/a>to his wife under Section 125 CrPC<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The dispute started after the husband argued that the woman was not legally entitled to maintenance<\/strong> because she had allegedly married him without obtaining a formal divorce from her first husband<\/strong>. According to him, she had hidden her previous marriage and earlier litigation from the Court and therefore could not claim the status of a legally wedded \u201cwife\u201d under Section 125 CrPC. He also argued that he was unemployed<\/strong> and that the Family Court wrongly assumed he had sufficient income and property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The woman, however, claimed that she had lived with her first husband for only one month<\/strong> and had no contact with him for nearly 12 years<\/strong> thereafter. She further stated that the husband was fully aware of these facts before marrying her and that their marriage was openly performed in front of villagers and relatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While examining the case, the High Court noted that the husband never led evidence before the Family Court to properly prove his allegations<\/strong>. The Court observed that the Family Court had already considered the entire dispute in detail and passed a \u201cwell-reasoned impugned order.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Importantly, the High Court recorded that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhen the marriage of the parties and their cohabitation as husband and wife were admitted, the respondent was a \u2018wife\u2019 within the meaning of Section 125 CrPC.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court accepted the Family Court\u2019s finding that the husband was aware of the woman\u2019s earlier marriage before marrying her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court then relied upon several Supreme Court judgments including \u201cDwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr.\u201d, \u201cChanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwana & Anr.\u201d and \u201cBadshah vs. Sou Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> to explain why maintenance law must be interpreted broadly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court observed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSection 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice especially enacted with the objective to protect women from vagrancy and\/ or destitution.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The judgment also referred to the Supreme Court decision in \u201cN. Usha Rani & Anr. vs. Moodudula Srinivas\u201d<\/em><\/strong>, where maintenance rights were upheld even though there was no formal divorce decree from the earlier marriage<\/strong> because the husband had knowledge about the previous marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling reflects how courts are increasingly giving wider interpretations<\/strong> to maintenance provisions even in legally disputed marriages<\/strong>. Despite objections regarding concealment of marital history, absence of formal divorce, and challenge to the validity of marriage itself, the husband remained liable to pay maintenance because the Court gave greater importance to the \u201csocial justice\u201d purpose behind Section 125 CrPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the High Court held that there was no \u201cperversity\/ illegality\/ irregularity\/ patent error\u201d in the Family Court<\/a> order and dismissed the husband\u2019s revision petition<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> A legal provision allowing wives, children, and parents to claim maintenance if they cannot maintain themselves<\/td> Wife claimed monthly maintenance from husband<\/td><\/tr> Section 401 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Gives High Courts power to examine legality or correctness of lower court orders in revision petitions<\/td> Husband filed revision petition before Delhi High Court<\/td><\/tr> Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Provides interim maintenance and litigation expenses during matrimonial proceedings<\/td> Mentioned while discussing maintenance-related principles<\/td><\/tr> Section 125 CrPC \u2013 \u201cWife\u201d Interpretation<\/strong><\/td> Courts have repeatedly interpreted \u201cwife\u201d broadly in maintenance matters<\/td> Court held wife could still seek maintenance despite dispute about earlier marriage<\/td><\/tr> Revisional Jurisdiction Principles<\/strong><\/td> High Court generally does not re-examine facts unless there is serious illegality or perversity<\/td> Court refused to interfere with Family Court findings<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n