Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse

Facts

The respondent (a divorcee) married the appellant in 2005 by Hindu rites; about three months later his first wife Shobha appeared and it emerged he had been married since 1979 with two children. The appellant had concealed this and duped the respondent. The trial court, sessions court and High Court awarded maintenance to her and their daughter under Section 125 CrPC; the appellant challenged her status as 'wife'.

Issues

• Whether a second wife, kept in the dark about the husband's subsisting first marriage, can claim maintenance as a 'wife' under Section 125 CrPC

Arguments

Appellant: relying on Yamunabai Adhav and Savitaben, a second marriage during a subsisting first marriage is void, so the respondent is not a legally wedded wife and cannot claim under Section 125. Respondent: the validity of marriage need not be conclusively decided in summary Section 125 proceedings, and the husband cannot profit from his fraud.

Held

The Court held that for the purpose of Section 125 the respondent must be treated as the appellant's wife. It reconciled the conflicting authorities by confining Yamunabai and Savitaben to cases where the woman married with knowledge of the first subsisting marriage; where the husband fraudulently concealed it, he cannot deny maintenance by pleading his own wrong. Adopting purposive, social-context interpretation of this beneficial anti-vagrancy provision and invoking the mischief rule, the Court dismissed the petition.

Ratio decidendi

Where a man fraudulently conceals his subsisting marriage and induces a woman to marry him, she is to be treated as his 'wife' for the limited purpose of Section 125 CrPC and is entitled to maintenance.

Significance

Important expansion of Section 125's beneficial reach through purposive 'social-context adjudication', preventing fraudulent husbands from escaping maintenance; frequently cited on Section 125 'wife' and on the fraud/own-wrong principle, distinguishing the stricter Savitaben line.

Related