Latest Judgement

1. ABSTRACT
   Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is a social justice provision intended to prevent destitution of women and children. Indian courts have often interpreted this provision liberally to protect vulnerable partners in informal relationships. However, judicial protection under Section 125 CrPC is not unconditional. This article examines a recent judicial position reaffirming that a woman is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if her first marriage is legally subsisting, even if she has cohabited with another man for a long period. The article analyses the legal reasoning behind this view, relevant statutory provisions, and leading judicial precedents, while also addressing the tension between social justice and statutory limitations.
2. INTRODUCTION
   Maintenance laws in India serve a remedial and humanitarian purpose. Section 125 CrPC provides a quick and effective remedy to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. Over time, courts have expanded the interpretation of the term “wife” to include women in relationships resembling marriage.
   However, courts have consistently drawn a legal boundary where a prior valid marriage continues to exist. A recent judgment reiterates this position by holding that long cohabitation alone does not entitle a woman to maintenance if her first marriage has not been dissolved by law. This ruling reinforces the principle that social justice provisions cannot override clear statutory prohibitions.
3. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK: SECTION 125 CRPC
   Section 125(1)(a) CrPC enables a wife who is unable to maintain herself to claim maintenance from her husband. The explanation to the provision clarifies that a “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced but not remarried.
   Notably, the statute does not recognize a woman as a “wife” if she enters into a second marital relationship while her first marriage is subsisting. Such a relationship lacks legal validity under personal laws governing marriage in India.
4. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF “WIFE” UNDER SECTION 125 CRPC
   1. STRICT INTERPRETATION WHERE FIRST MARRIAGE SUBSISTS
      The Supreme Court has consistently held that a woman whose first marriage is legally subsisting cannot claim maintenance as a wife under Section 125 CrPC. In Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, the Court ruled that a second marriage contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage is void, and the woman cannot claim maintenance.
      Similarly, in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, the Court observed that sympathetic considerations cannot override express statutory provisions.
   2. PRESUMPTION OF MARRIAGE AND ITS LIMITS
      Courts have sometimes presumed marriage from long cohabitation to protect women from exploitation. However, this presumption is rebuttable. If evidence shows that the woman’s first marriage was never dissolved, the presumption collapses.
      The recent judgment applies this principle strictly, holding that cohabitation cannot legalize a relationship that is void in law.
5. DISTINCTION FROM LIBERAL APPROACH IN CERTAIN CASES
   In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, the Supreme Court adopted a purposive interpretation and granted maintenance to a woman who was deceived into marriage. However, the Court emphasized that such relief depends on absence of knowledge and absence of a subsisting valid marriage.
   Where the woman herself is legally married and the marriage continues to exist, courts have declined to extend similar protection. The present judgment aligns with this distinction.
6. RATIONALE BEHIND THE JUDGMENT
   The reasoning behind denying maintenance in such cases rests on three key grounds:
   1. Statutory Limitation – Section 125 CrPC recognizes only legally valid wives.
   2. Personal Law Compliance – Bigamous relationships are void under personal laws.
   3. Preventing Legal Anomalies – Granting maintenance may indirectly validate an illegal relationship.The court clarified that while the provision is welfare-oriented, it cannot be stretched to defeat the rule of law.
7. CRITICAL ANALYSIS
   The judgment reflects a strict legal approach that prioritizes statutory compliance over equitable considerations. While this may leave some women without remedy, courts have indicated that legislative reform, rather than judicial expansion, is the appropriate solution.
   Alternative remedies such as civil claims or protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 may still be explored, depending on facts.
8. CONCLUSION
   The judgment reaffirms a settled legal position: long cohabitation does not confer the status of “wife” under Section 125 CrPC when a prior marriage subsists. While maintenance law aims to prevent destitution, it cannot legitimize relationships that are void under law. The decision underscores the delicate balance between social justice and statutory boundaries, and highlights the need for legislative clarity in addressing evolving family structures.This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, who practices divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. It is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified lawyer or advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.

Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.