Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not maintainable for a spouse who concealed a prior subsisting marriage.

The Petitioners (wife and minor son) filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Respondent-husband contested the claim, asserting that the Petitioner No. 1 (wife) had concealed her subsistence of a previous marriage with one Shri Kaliram Bhiva Tare and had not obtained a divorce.

The Magistrate initially granted maintenance to both.

On revision, the Sessions Court set aside the maintenance for Petitioner No. 1, holding the marriage null and void due to the prior existing marriage.

The High Court noted that the marriage was formally annulled under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and that Petitioner No. 1 cohabited with the Respondent for only three months.

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., interpreted through the Full Bench decision in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, which established that "wife" means only a legally wedded wife and excludes those whose marriage is void under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, which suggested a broad interpretation for long-term "live-in" relationships.

Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.), which clarified that a second wife whose marriage is void due to a surviving first marriage is generally not entitled to maintenance.

The Court reasoned that Petitioner No. 1 does not satisfy the legal definition of a "wife" because her marriage was annulled by a competent court for violating Section 5(i) of the HMA.

While acknowledging precedents that favor women in "de facto" marriages or long-term live-in relationships, the Court found these inapplicable because the parties cohabited for only approximately three months, failing the "reasonably long period" test set out in Chanmuniya.

Crucially, the Court distinguished this case from others based on the element of "deceit" and "concealment" regarding the first marriage; it held that a party cannot take advantage of their own wrong to claim a summary remedy under beneficial legislation.

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the Sessions Court's order.

The maintenance for Petitioner No. 2 (the child) remained undisturbed as paternity was not the grounds for the challenge.