The Allahabad Excessive Courtroom has dominated {that a} lady cannot declare upkeep below Part 125 CrPC from a companion she lives with if her first marriage remains to be legally legitimate. The Courtroom held that even a long-term relationship resembling marriage doesn’t grant her the authorized standing of a ‘spouse’ if she has not obtained a divorce from her first husband.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh noticed that allowing such claims would undermine the “moral and cultural basis of Hindu household regulation”
“If such a follow is permitted in society, the place a girl continues to stay legally married to 1 man, but resides with one other with out acquiring dissolution of the primary marriage, and thereafter seeks upkeep from the latter, the very object and sanctity of Part 125 CrPC would stand diluted and the establishment of marriage would lose its authorized and social integrity”, the bench remarked.
The Courtroom noticed thus whereas dismissing a revision petition filed by a girl difficult an order by the trial courtroom which had rejected her upkeep utility.
The Revisionist claimed she had married Reverse Social gathering No. 2 in June 2009, after he represented that he had severed ties along with his former spouse through a settlement in August 2005.
She submitted that they cohabited as husband and spouse for almost a decade and her standing as his spouse was recorded in official paperwork resembling her Aadhaar Card and Passport.
She additional alleged that after ten years, she was subjected to cruelty and abandoned in March 2018 and subsequently, she needed to transfer the courtroom to hunt upkeep.
On the opposite hand, the Reverse Social gathering No. 2 contested her declare by arguing that the Revisionist was merely the daughter of his “distant aunt” and that no legitimate marriage existed between them.
It was additionally submitted that the Revisionist had by no means obtained a closing decree of divorce from her first husband and thus, she couldn’t search upkeep from him as she is a legally wedded spouse of one other man.
Towards the backdrop of those arguments, the Excessive Courtroom examined the information of the case and famous that the Revisionist was already married and though she had instituted a divorce petition, the identical was dismissed in default.
Consequently, the Courtroom famous that her first marriage was nonetheless subsisting in regulation.
Moreover, the Courtroom famous that even the Reverse Social gathering No. 2 (Husband) was additionally already married to a girl and that marriage had additionally not been dissolved.
Referring to Part 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which declares {that a} marriage contracted in the course of the lifetime of a residing partner is void ab initio, the Courtroom reasoned that since each events have been married to different individuals, their relationship couldn’t create the authorized standing of husband and spouse between them.
Importantly, the counsel for the wife-revisionist relied on the Supreme Courtroom judgment in Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. (2014), whereby it was held that the spouse of a second marriage is entitled to upkeep in case the husband has duped her into getting married.
Nonetheless, the Excessive Courtroom distinguished the current case from the highest courtroom’s Judgment, noting that within the 2014 case, the second spouse was unaware of the husband’s first marriage and he or she herself was eligible to marry.
Nonetheless, within the current case, the Courtroom famous, the Revisionist herself admitted to a subsisting marriage with no decree of divorce. Due to this fact, the Courtroom famous:
“Her plea that she acted on the premise of mutual settlement and notarized deed can not confer her authorized standing…Due to this fact, the plea of ignorance relating to the dissolution of first marriage can’t be accepted.”
The HC additionally relied on the 2005 judgment of the Supreme Courtroom in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat, the place it was held that ‘spouse’ can’t be expanded to incorporate a girl not legally married.
Thus, the Excessive Courtroom concluded that the Revisionist doesn’t fall inside the ambit of a “legally wedded spouse” and thus was not eligible to assert compensation from her companion, even when she was in a long-standing relationship with him.
“…though the revisionist resided with the other social gathering for almost ten years and the relationship could seem akin to marriage, but such cohabitation doesn’t confer the authorized standing of a spouse below Part 125 Cr.P.C. In regulation, even assuming a wedding ceremony was carried out, the identical can be void because the applicant’s earlier marital tie continued to subsist“.
Thus, the Courtroom upheld the trial courtroom’s order rejecting her upkeep utility and dismissed the legal revision plea.
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajeev Sawhney, Raju Kumar
Counsel for Reverse Social gathering(s) : Astitva Srivastava, G.A., Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, Sasmita Srivastava
Case title – Madhu Alias Aruna Bhajpai vs. State of U.P. and One other
Case quotation :
Leave a Reply