Chhattisgarh HC: Term ‘Wife’ Under Section 125 CrPC Includes Women Married Through Necessary Rites
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently clarified that the term “wife” under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) includes not only a legally wedded wife but also a woman who is married through the performance of necessary rites. The court emphasized that this broader interpretation aims to protect the rights of women in marriages that may not strictly adhere to all legal formalities.
Case Overview
A bench led by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey heard a criminal revision petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, challenging an order from the Family Court.
In the case, the wife alleged that her husband physically and mentally abused her after marriage. She claimed she was locked in a room without food for days and was deserted by her husband, who allegedly had an illicit relationship with another woman. Left with no support, she sought shelter at her parental home and filed for Rs. 25,000 per month in maintenance.
The Family Court partially allowed her application, directing the husband to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance.
Legal References
The High Court referred to the landmark case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another, which held that Hindu women married after the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to a man already having a living wife, are not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC as such marriages are void under Section 11 of the Act.
However, the court observed that under Section 125 CrPC, the definition of “wife” must be interpreted broadly. It should include not just lawfully wedded wives but also women who were married in fact through the performance of essential rites or legal procedures. The burden of proof lies with the husband to show that the woman was married to someone else.
High Court’s Observations
The bench noted several facts that supported the wife’s claim, including:
- Financial transactions between the husband and wife.
- Hotel receipts proving they stayed together multiple times.
- Evidence of a marriage ceremony in a temple.
Based on this evidence, the court concluded that the Family Court’s order of maintenance did not require any interference.
Final Judgment
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by the husband and upheld the Family Court’s order directing him to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.
Conclusion
This ruling highlights the court’s commitment to ensuring justice for women, even in cases where marriages might not fully conform to legal formalities. By extending the definition of “wife” under Section 125 CrPC, the judgment reinforces the importance of financial and social protection for women in relationships.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==