Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has held that a woman who is induced into marriage by concealment of the husband’s existing marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even though the wedding between the parties is void.Justice Garima Prashad added that a husband cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and deny maintenance to a woman who entered into the marriage without knowledge of his subsisting earlier marriage.The court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a man challenging the family court’s order granting maintenance. However, it partly allowed the wife’s revision plea seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount.In her petition, the wife, Monika alias Satyawati, sought enhancement of maintenance on the ground that the amount of Rs 6,000 per month awarded by the family court, Mathura, was inadequate, considering that the husband is a government servant earning around Rs 50,000 per month.On the other hand, the husband, Manoj Kumar alias Bablu, contended that the application filed by the wife under Section 125 CrPC was itself not maintainable, as the marriage between the parties was not valid in the eyes of law.According to him, his earlier marriage had not been dissolved on the date of the alleged marriage with the woman. In this case, the parties allegedly married on December 12, 2016. However, the husband’s first marriage, solemnised on Feb 29, 2008, was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent only on Nov 15, 2017.Thus, on the date of the alleged marriage, his earlier marriage admittedly subsisted. The family court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the marriage ceremonies between the parties had, in fact, been performed according to Hindu rites and customs.It rejected the husband’s plea that the marriage had been solemnised forcibly at gunpoint and further found that he had concealed the fact of his subsisting marriage from the woman, who had entered into the matrimonial relationship without knowledge of his existing marriage.Although the marriage was not valid in the strict sense of law owing to the subsistence of the husband’s earlier marriage, the family court held that the woman was nevertheless entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.Upholding the findings of the family court, Justice Prashad rejected the husband’s contention that the woman could not be granted maintenance merely because the marriage was void. The court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Badshah v Sou Urmila Badshah Godse (2013) and Kamala and Others v MR Mohan Kumar (2018) to note that where a husband conceals his subsisting first marriage and induces a woman to marry him, he cannot be permitted to deny maintenance to a woman who entered into the marriage without knowledge of the subsisting earlier marriage.The court, in its judgment dated July 16, noted that a beneficial and purposive interpretation of Section 125 CrPC is required to prevent exploitation and destitution in such cases. The HC found no illegality in the family court’s finding that the husband had fraudulently concealed his subsisting marriage and that the woman had no knowledge of it.
