Liberal Construction of 'Wife' Under Section 125 CrPC Extends Maintenance Rights to De Facto Marriages.

The petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife) married on 26.05.2009. The respondent alleged they cohabited in Delhi until the petitioner began assaulting her in late 2009/early 2010, forcing her to move to her mother’s house

Lacking means to sustain herself, she filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court, Patiala House Courts, via order dated 27.02.2018, awarded her ₹3,000 per month and litigation expenses

The petitioner challenged this order, contending that the marriage was void as the respondent had a prior subsisting marriage, the court lacked territorial jurisdiction, and he was currently unemployed

1. Whether the respondent qualifies as a "wife" under Section 125 CrPC despite the absence of a formal decree of divorce from her first husband

2. Whether the Family Court at Delhi had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition given the marriage was solemnized in Uttar Pradesh

3. Whether the quantum of maintenance (₹3,000) was justified in light of the petitioner's alleged unemployment

The Court primarily applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), emphasizing its nature as a social-welfare provision intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution

It relied on Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwana and Badshah v. Sou Urmila Badshah Godse, which established that the term "wife" in Section 125 CrPC should be interpreted liberally rather than strictly

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu, which limits the scope of a Revisional Court’s interference in maintenance orders unless there is patent illegality or material irregularity

The Court noted that the petitioner failed to lead any evidence before the Family Court despite being duly served, thereby forfeiting the right to challenge facts at the revisional stage

Regarding the validity of the marriage, the Court found that the respondent had lived with her first husband for only one month and had not seen him for 12 years, raising a legal presumption of his death; additionally, the petitioner was aware of this history prior to their marriage

The Court reasoned that since the parties cohabited as husband and wife, a strict "de jure" marriage proof is not required for Section 125 CrPC, which seeks to protect dependent women

On jurisdiction and quantum, the Court held that the Family Court’s findings were cogent and based on the evidence available, noting that the petitioner offered no evidence to disprove his financial capacity or the respondent's claims

The High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Family Court's order. The Court found no perversity, patent error, or arbitrariness in the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 and directed the petitioner to comply with the maintenance payments of ₹3,000 per month and litigation expenses