A second wife is entitled to maintenance only when the subsisting first marriage was fraudulently concealed.

The petitioner claimed to be the respondent’s wife, alleging that they married on 1 July 2018 according to Buddhist/Hindu customs and that the respondent subjected her to cruelty, preventing her from continuing her employment. She sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The respondent denied the marriage and contended that his earlier marriage with Madhushri @ Savitri, though dissolved by decree dated 31 March 2015, remained subsisting because the decree had been stayed in MFA No. 101347/2015. He also alleged that the petitioner knew of the pending appeal and had initiated other proceedings against him.

The petitioner adduced evidence and produced 19 documents, while the respondent did not lead evidence but cross-examined her.

The Family Court dismissed the maintenance petition on the ground that the respondent’s first marriage continued to subsist and that the petitioner had not established that the respondent had suppressed the stay order or the subsistence of his earlier marriage.

The petitioner challenged that order under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Whether the petitioner established that she was the wife of the respondent for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

Whether the respondent suppressed the stay order and the subsistence of his earlier marriage before marrying the petitioner, thereby entitling her to maintenance notwithstanding the invalidity of the subsequent marriage?

The Court applied Section 125 Cr.P.C., which permits a legally wedded wife, and in appropriate circumstances a woman treated as such for maintenance purposes, to claim maintenance from a neglecting or refusing husband; Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court over orders of a Family Court.

The Court held that strict proof of marriage is not ordinarily required in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but the claimant must nevertheless establish a relationship sufficient to invoke the provision.

Relying on Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188, and Smt. Monika alias Satyawati v. State of U.P., the Court recognised that a woman whose marriage is invalid because of a subsisting earlier marriage may still claim maintenance where the husband fraudulently concealed the earlier marriage.

Conversely, the principles in Yamunabai v. Anantrao and Savitaben v. State of Gujarat apply where the woman married with knowledge of the subsisting first marriage.

Under Sections 5(i), 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a subsequent Hindu marriage during the subsistence of a prior marriage is void, subject to the protective maintenance principle recognised in Badshah where concealment or fraud is proved.

The Court found that the petitioner had not satisfactorily established the marriage itself. Although she pleaded that the marriage was performed according to Hindu rites, she admitted that there was no saptapadi and no sacred fire; she instead relied on an alleged Buddhist ceremony and disputed photographs, which the respondent seriously challenged.

More importantly, the petitioner admitted that she had examined the respondent’s divorce decree before marrying him and knew that an appeal concerning that decree was pending. She did not plead or prove that the respondent had concealed either the pending appeal or the stay order.

The Court emphasised that the protective rule in Badshah applies only where the husband fraudulently suppresses the subsisting first marriage; that factual foundation was absent here.

The petitioner’s education and prior employment further weakened her assertion that she was unaware of the relevant circumstances, and she did not establish that the respondent had compelled her to leave employment.

Accordingly, neither the marital relationship nor the necessary concealment was proved.

Since the factual basis for applying the exception in Badshah was absent, the Family Court’s dismissal of the Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition was upheld.

The revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 was therefore dismissed.