The Allahabad High Court held that a woman cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from a partner with whom she has lived for a long period in a relationship resembling marriage if her first marriage is still legally subsisting. The court made it clear that prolonged cohabitation does not confer the legal status of “wife” when the claimant continues to be bound by a prior valid marriage that has not been dissolved in accordance with law. The ruling came while deciding a criminal revision petition filed by a woman challenging the rejection of her maintenance application by the trial court.
The woman had approached the court seeking maintenance on the ground that she had lived with the respondent for several years as his wife and had been deserted after being subjected to cruelty. She claimed that she had separated from her first husband through mutual settlement and thereafter entered into a domestic relationship with the respondent, during which they lived together for nearly a decade. She further asserted that her status as the respondent’s partner was reflected in identity documents and that she had been treated as his wife in society. Based on these circumstances, she contended that she was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The respondent opposed the claim by asserting that no legally valid marriage existed between him and the woman. He stated that both parties were already married to other persons and that neither of them had obtained a decree of divorce dissolving their earlier marriages. According to him, the subsistence of the first marriages rendered their relationship legally void, and therefore, the woman could not be treated as a “wife” within the meaning of Section 125 CrPC. He argued that in the absence of a valid marriage recognized by law, no claim for maintenance could be sustained.
The High Court examined the factual record and noted that the woman’s petition for divorce from her first husband had been dismissed for default, resulting in the continuance of her first marriage in the eyes of law. The court also observed that there was no material to show that the respondent’s earlier marriage had been legally dissolved. In view of these facts, the court held that both parties continued to be legally married to their respective spouses and that any subsequent relationship entered into during the subsistence of those marriages could not acquire legal sanctity.
Referring to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court reiterated that a marriage contracted during the lifetime of a living spouse is void from its inception. It emphasized that such a relationship cannot give rise to legal rights and obligations akin to those arising from a valid marriage. The court observed that Section 125 CrPC is intended to provide relief to legally recognized wives who are unable to maintain themselves and that extending this benefit to relationships that are void under law would defeat the statutory framework and underlying social purpose of the provision.
The High Court addressed the argument that long cohabitation should create a presumption of marriage and entitle the woman to maintenance. It clarified that while long cohabitation may have relevance in certain contexts, it cannot override clear statutory mandates where the existence of a prior subsisting marriage renders a subsequent relationship void. The court stated that cohabitation, irrespective of its duration, cannot cure the legal defect arising from the absence of a valid divorce from the first marriage.
The court also considered judicial precedents dealing with maintenance claims by women in second relationships. It distinguished cases where maintenance was granted to women who were unaware of their partner’s earlier marriage or who were otherwise legally eligible to marry. In the present case, the court noted that the woman herself acknowledged the existence of her first marriage and had failed to obtain a legal dissolution of that marriage. The court held that this distinction was crucial and disentitled her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The High Court further observed that a notarized settlement or private understanding between estranged spouses does not have the effect of dissolving a marriage under law. It stated that divorce can only be effected through a decree passed by a competent court, and until such a decree is obtained, the marital relationship continues to subsist. The court emphasized that legal consequences cannot flow from informal arrangements that have no recognition under statutory law.
Upholding the findings of the trial court, the High Court concluded that the woman did not satisfy the basic requirement of being a legally wedded wife for the purpose of claiming maintenance. It held that the trial court had correctly applied the law in rejecting her application and that there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in revision.
In dismissing the revision petition, the High Court reaffirmed that the right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is contingent upon the existence of a valid and subsisting marital relationship. It reiterated that long cohabitation alone cannot create such a relationship when it is contrary to statutory provisions governing marriage. The court thus maintained that the woman was not entitled to maintenance from the respondent and dismissed her challenge, reinforcing the legal principle that subsistence of a first marriage bars maintenance claims arising from a subsequent relationship.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.