Court rules that a woman deceived about husband's existing marriage can claim interim maintenance, emphasizing purposive interpretation to advance social justice.
In a landmark judgment delivered on September 10, 2026, the Tripura High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit, rejected a petition challenging the grant of interim maintenance to a woman who was allegedly duped into marriage by concealing the husband's existing marital status. The Court held that for the purpose of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), such a woman should be treated as a "wife" under a purposive interpretation aimed at fulfilling the constitutional vision of social justice.
The case arose when Sri Gopi Nath Saha (petitioner) challenged an order passed by the Family Court, Agartala, which awarded Rs. 15,000 per month as interim maintenance to Smt. Bina Roy (respondent), who claimed to be his wife. The petitioner contended that the respondent was not his legally wedded wife, as he had a subsisting marriage with another woman who died only in 2020. He further argued that the respondent failed to produce any documentary proof of marriage and that the alleged marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage was null and void in law.
The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner had represented himself as divorced and married her in 2012 at the Kalighat Temple, Kolkata. They lived together as husband and wife, with the petitioner assuming responsibilities towards her and her son, including financial support for the child's education. The respondent also alleged that the petitioner concealed the existence of his first marriage at the time of their union.
In its detailed analysis, the Tripura High Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005), which traditionally held that a marriage solemnized during the subsistence of an earlier marriage is void, and such a woman is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, the Court distinguished these precedents by highlighting the principle of purposive interpretation emphasized in the recent Supreme Court ruling in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014), which broadens the definition of "wife" to include women who lived with a man as his wife for a considerable period, even if strict legal marriage was not established.
The Court underscored that denying maintenance to a woman who was misled by her partner would be contrary to the constitutional mandate of social justice enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. It observed that the law must adapt to social realities and protect vulnerable sections of society, especially women, by ensuring their dignity and equality.
The Court noted that the petitioner had admitted to traveling with the respondent and spending substantial money on her son's education. The respondent also produced photographs and other evidence demonstrating their relationship. Given these facts, and since the main maintenance petition was still pending, the Court declined to interfere with the interim maintenance order.
The Court also directed the Family Court to expedite the disposal of the main petition without being influenced by the observations in the present judgment and to provide both parties a fair opportunity to present their evidence.
This judgment marks a progressive step in family law jurisprudence by reinforcing the protective purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., ensuring that women deceived into marital relationships are not left without support.
Bottom Line:
A woman, who was duped into marriage by a man concealing his existing marital status, can be treated as a "wife" for the purpose of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in line with the principle of purposive interpretation aimed at achieving social justice.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984
Gopi Nath Saha v. Bina Roy, (Tripura) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981455
