Second Wife Entitled To Maintenance When She Had No Knowledge Of Subsisting Marriage: Allahabad High Court

The High Court was considering two criminal revisions arising out of a common judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura in proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Garima Prashad noted, “The aforesaid principle has subsequently been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamala and Others vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491, wherein it was held that where a woman is induced into marriage by concealment of the husband’s existing marriage, a beneficial and purposive interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is required to prevent exploitation and destitution.”

“In the present case, the Family Court has recorded a finding of fact, based on appreciation of evidence, that the revisionist-wife had no knowledge of the subsisting marriage of the revisionist-husband and that the revisionist-husband had fraudulently concealed the said fact. No perversity or illegality in the said finding could be demonstrated before this Court. Consequently, the revisionist wife was rightly held entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the invalidity of the marriage under personal law”, it added.

Advocate Awadh Narain Rai represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

One of the revisions was preferred by the revisionist-husband challenging the judgment on the ground that the marriage between the parties was not valid in the eyes of law as the marriage of the revisionist with his first wife had not been dissolved on the date of the alleged marriage with the revisionist wife and, therefore, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself was not maintainable. The wife preferred a Revision seeking enhancement of maintenance on the ground that the amount of Rs 6,000 per month awarded by the Family Court was wholly inadequate considering that the opposite party-husband was working as a Lekhpal and earning approximately Rs 50,000 per month.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the husband-opposite party had earlier contracted marriage in 2008 and the said marriage came to be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. “Thus, on the date of the marriage alleged by the present revisionist-wife, i.e. 12.12.2016, the earlier marriage of the opposite party was admittedly subsisting”, it added.

The Bench noted that the Family Court had also found that the opposite party had concealed the fact of his subsisting marriage from the revisionist-wife and the revisionist-wife had entered into the matrimonial relationship without knowledge of the subsisting first marriage of the opposite party. It was noticed that the Family Court had further held that although the marriage between the parties was not a valid marriage in the strict sense of law owing to the subsistence of the earlier marriage of the opposite party, the revisionist-wife was nevertheless entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

The Bench held, “The principal submission advanced on behalf of the revisionist husband is that since the marriage between the parties was void owing to the subsistence of his earlier marriage, the revisionist wife could not have been granted maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This submission cannot be accepted.”

Thus, finding no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by the Family Court, the Bench dismissed the husband’s Criminal Revision but partly allowed the wife’s Revision by enhancing the maintenance amount.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:144706)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Awadh Narain Rai, Ayushi Dubey

Respondent: Government Advocate, Advocate Rohit Shukla

Click here to read/download Order