AHMEDABAD: <\/em>An Ahmedabad Metropolitan Magistrate Court<\/strong> recently passed an order in a domestic violence case involving an insurance company executive who was accused of secretly marrying another woman<\/strong> during the subsistence of his first marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court directed the husband to pay a total of \u20b965,000 every month<\/strong>, including \u20b950,000 towards maintenance for his wife and minor daughter and \u20b915,000 towards house rent. The order came in proceedings filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/strong>, 2005.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the facts placed before the court, the husband and wife got married in 2011 while both were working for an insurance company in Surat. The couple later had a daughter in 2017. However, the marriage reportedly ran into difficulties when the wife discovered that her husband had allegedly married another woman<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife claimed that she and her daughter were compelled to leave the matrimonial home in 2018 after the husband’s second marriage. She subsequently initiated criminal proceedings alleging bigamy and cruelty<\/strong>. In 2024, she approached the Ahmedabad court through advocate Salim Saiyed seeking maintenance and other reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n After examining the material before it, the court observed that entering into a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting can constitute emotional and mental cruelty<\/strong> towards the first wife. While granting relief, the court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “While the act of a husband contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first is a grave form of emotional and mental domestic violence and the Respondent No. 1 (husband) has also not explicitly refuted the existence of the second wife, therefore this court is of the considered view that act of domestic violence has been meted upon the Applicant No. 1 (first wife) by the husband in emotional form.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The husband opposed the application and argued that he was already paying maintenance to his wife under an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure<\/strong>. The court noted that the wife had not disclosed the maintenance already being received under those proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because of this non-disclosure, the court declined to grant separate monetary compensation to the wife.<\/strong> However, it found sufficient grounds to grant maintenance and residential relief under the Domestic Violence Act.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Apart from financial relief, the court also passed a protection order against the husband and the woman alleged to be his second wife<\/strong>. The order stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Respondent No. 1 (husband) and Respondent No. 4 (second wife) are hereby strictly prohibited from committing any acts of domestic violence, whether physical, emotional, or economic, against the applicants.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The order highlights that domestic violence is not limited to physical abuse<\/strong>. Courts can also consider emotional and mental harm suffered by a spouse while deciding claims under the Domestic Violence Act. The Ahmedabad court’s decision reinforces the principle that a secret second marriage, if established, may have serious legal consequences<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How It Was Used In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/a>, 2005<\/td> Protects women from physical, emotional, verbal, sexual and economic abuse within domestic relationships<\/td> Wife filed proceedings seeking maintenance, rent and protection orders<\/td><\/tr> Section 20, DV Act<\/td> Monetary relief and maintenance<\/td> Court granted \u20b950,000 per month maintenance<\/td><\/tr> Section 19, DV Act<\/td> Residence orders<\/td> Court granted \u20b915,000 per month towards house rent<\/td><\/tr> Section 18, DV Act<\/td> Protection orders<\/td> Court restrained husband and second wife from committing further domestic violence<\/td><\/tr> Emotional Domestic Violence (Recognized under DV Act)<\/td> Covers mental and emotional cruelty<\/td> Court held that contracting a second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage amounted to emotional domestic violence<\/td><\/tr> Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS<\/a>)<\/td> Maintenance <\/a>for wife, children and parents<\/td> Husband argued he was already paying maintenance under this provision<\/td><\/tr> Section 494 IPC (Bigamy)<\/td> Punishes a second marriage during the lifetime of a legally wedded spouse<\/td> Wife had reportedly filed criminal proceedings alleging bigamy<\/td><\/tr> Section 498A IPC<\/a> (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives)<\/td> Punishes cruelty against a married woman<\/td> Wife had reportedly initiated proceedings alleging cruelty<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n