The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 268/2019, by its order dated 27 April 2026 passed by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, has dismissed the miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baran in Criminal Case No. 43/2016. By the impugned order, the Family Court had rejected the petitioner’s application seeking maintenance from the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
None appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that both the petitioner and the respondent were already married to different spouses at the time of their alleged marriage, which was never registered. The parties resided separately thereafter. The petitioner filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, but the respondent contended that the petitioner was not his legally wedded wife. Therefore, the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. were not attracted, and the Family Court rightly rejected the application on this ground alone.
The Court reproduced the full text of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and observed that it is a tool for social justice enacted to ensure that women and children are protected from vagrancy and destitution. It is a beneficial provision meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a deserted wife and to secure her sustenance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children and cannot shirk his moral and familial responsibilities. The Court referred to the judgment in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 353, which explained the social purpose and context of the provision.
However, the Court clarified that for Section 125 Cr.P.C. to apply, the claimant must fall within the ambit of “wife” as defined in the statutory provision. While the term “wife” has received a broader interpretation in some Supreme Court judgments such as Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) 2 SCC 556 and Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999) 7 SCC 675 to advance the social object of the provision, other decisions including Yamunabhai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) 1 SCC 530 and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636 have held that the term “wife” means a legally wedded wife. A second wife whose marriage is void on account of the subsistence of the first marriage of either party is not entitled to maintenance under this section.
The Court further referred to Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) (1991) 2 SCC 375, which emphasised that the provision is meant to achieve a social purpose and provides a speedy remedy to the deserted wife. The Court perused the documents on record and found it undisputed that the petitioner and the respondent had remarried while their earlier spouses were still alive. Their previous marriages were later dissolved, but at the relevant time both had living spouses. Therefore, the petitioner never attained the status of a “legally wedded wife” of the respondent.
The Court held that the Family Court committed no error in rejecting the application. The term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not envisage a situation where both parties to the alleged marriage had living spouses at the time of the second marriage. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition was dismissed and all pending applications were also disposed of.
Before parting with the order, this Court would like to observe that the term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not envisage a situation wherein both the parties in the alleged marriage have living spouses, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner herein cannot seek maintenance from the respondent under this provision. This Court finds it unfortunate that many women, specially those belonging to the poorer strata of society are routinely exploited in this manner and the legal loopholes allow the offending parties to slip away unscathed. In spite of the social justice factor embedded in Section 125 Cr.P.C., the objective of the provision is defeated as it fails to arrest the exploitation which it seeks to curb. In the instant case, while the Court sympathises with the position of the petitioner, it is constrained to deny her maintenance as per the law of the land which stands as of today. However, the petitioner has the liberty to avail other remedies, that may be better suited to the facts and circumstances of the present case, such as seeking compensation under Section 22 of the DV Act.
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 