Smt. Ramkali vs Amarjeet Singh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48362
1 CRR-3427-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
th
ON THE 6 OF JULY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3427 of 2019
SMT. RAMKALI
Versus
AMARJEET SINGH
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/wife challenging
the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dindori in
MJCR no.183/2017 whereby the Family Court has dismissed an application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/wife on the ground that she is not
legally married wife.
2. Even though no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner/wife to press
the instant criminal revision, but the case of the petitioner/wife before the Family
Court has been that she was married to the respondent in the year 2002 and since
no child was born to her, therefore, the respondent/husband was treating the
petitioner with cruelty and deserted her and thereafter, she is residing in her
parental house.
3. In reply to the application, the respondent contended that the petitioner
was never married to the respondent and she being not wife of the respondent, is
not entitled to any maintenance.
4. In support of the allegations, both the parties adduced evidence, oral as
well as documentary and thereafter, while passing the impugned order the Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:39:33 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48362
2 CRR-3427-2019
has refused to award any maintenance to the petitioner/wife on the ground that she

is not legally married wife because she was already married to one Tirath Yadav.
5. As per case of the respondent/husband, the petitioner was never married
to him and she is not his wife. On the contrary, the Court has said that the
petitioner is not legally married wife of the respondent. Even Prima facie there is
documentary evidence to show that the petitioner was married to the respondent.
6. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the Court has not
recorded any finding that the petitioner was not married to the respondent, but the
Court has observed that the petitioner was already married to one Tirath Yadav,
therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be legally married wife of the
respondent.
7. Recently, in the case of N. Usha Rani and another vs. Moodudula
Srinivas, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 225 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:-
"12. This purposive interpretation was pressed into service by a 3-Judge
bench in Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K), (1991) 2 SCC 375 whereby
maintenance was granted to the second wife as the Respondent husband
was unable to conclusively establish his first marriage. The Court
noted:
“3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to
achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and
destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food,
clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. When an attempt is made
by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife
depicting her as a kept-mistress on the specious plea that he was
already married, the court would insist on strict proof of the earlier
marriage. The term ‘wife’ in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, includes a woman who has been divorced by a husband
or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not
remarried. The woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus
brought within the inclusive definition of the term ‘wife’
consistent with the objective. However, under the law a second
wife whose marriage is void on account of the survival of the first
marriage is not a legally wedded wife and is, therefore, not
entitled to maintenance under this provision. Therefore, the law
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:39:33 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48362
3 CRR-3427-2019
which disentitles the second wife from receiving maintenance
from her husband under Section 125, CrPC, for the sole reason
that the marriage ceremony though performed in the customary
form lacks legal sanctity can be applied only when the husband
satisfactorily proves the subsistence of a legal and valid marriage
particularly when the provision in the Code is a measure of social
justice intended to protect women and children. We are unable to
find that the respondent herein has discharged the heavy burden by
tendering strict proof of the fact in issue. The High Court failed to
consider the standard of proof required and has proceeded on no
evidence whatsoever in determining the question against the
appellant. We are, therefore, unable to agree that the appellant is
not entitled to maintenance.”
......... ......... ............. ................. .............. ...............

15. This divergence in judicial opinion has been noted by the Court in
Chanmuniya (supra) and therefore the question of whether women in
live-in relationships can claim maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC was referred
to a larger bench. The discussion, to the extent relevant, is reproduced
below:


“24. Thus, in those cases where a man, who lived with a woman
for a long time and even though they may not have undergone
legal necessities of a valid marriage, should be made liable to pay
the woman maintenance if he deserts her. The man should not be
allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes by enjoying the
advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking the duties
and obligations. Any other interpretation would lead the woman to
vagrancy and destitution, which the provision of maintenance in
Section 125 is meant to prevent.
25. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System,
headed by Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath, in its Report of 2003 opined
that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a
reasonably long period should be sufficient to draw the
presumption that the marriage was performed according to the
customary rites of the parties. Thus, it recommended that the word
“wife” in Section 125 CrPC should be amended to include a
woman who was living with the man like his wife for a reasonably
long period…

42. We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation
should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases
where a man and woman have been living together as husband and
wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of
marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under
Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:39:33 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:48362
4 CRR-3427-2019
beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also
believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of
the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution,
namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.”
8. In my considered opinion and in presence of the documentary evidence

available on record showing marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, the
matter is required to be examined again in the light of aforesaid decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case N. Usha Rani and another (supra).
9. Resultantly, the impugned order appears to be unsustainable, hence is
hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Family Court to decide the
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. afresh in the light of aforesaid decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Usha Rani and another (supra).
10. Parties are directed to remain present before the Family Court on
03.08.2026. It is made clear that if the parties do not appear before the Family
Court, the Family Court shall issue fresh notice to them with a view to secure their
presence.
11. With the aforesaid, instant criminal revision is partly allowed and
disposed of.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 7/7/2026
11:39:33 AM