Case title:
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State of Gujarat and Ors
Date of Order:
10th March 2005
Bench:
Justice Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia
Parties:
Petitioner: Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya
Defendant: State of Gujarat and Ors
Facts:
- In 1994, the appellant wed respondent number 2 in a civil union. Later on, respondent number 2 began torturing her and treating her poorly. There was a child born thanks to the appellant.
- The appellant afterwards learned that he was having an extramarital affair with a women named Veenaben. The appellant, who was living independently, submitted a request for support under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), alleging negligence on the part of respondent no. 2.
- The respondent no. 2 argued that the appellant was not lawfully married, the kid born was not his son, and Veenaben had been married to him for more than 22 years when the appellant later filed the application before Judicial Magistrate first class (JMFC).
- The JMFC granted maintenance after approving the petition. After that, Respondent No. 2 filed a criminal revision with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was upheld, causing the learned JMFC to order that both the appellant and the child be given maintenance. The respondent no. 2 filed a second Criminal Revision Application in opposition to the later JMFC order; however, the Additional District Judge dismissed the application.
- As a result, he filed a Special Criminal Application with the Gujrat High Court, and the child's maintenance was increased from 350 to 500. As a result, the appellant submitted an appeal.
Issue Raised:
- Is the appellant eligible to make a maintenance claim?
- Will the maintenance amount be increased?
Arguments:
- As exact proof of marriage is not a requirement under section 125 of the CrPC, the High Court has adopted an overly technical stance.
- The second respondent is guilty of fraud because the equity does not support him because he was previously married to Veenaben.
- The JMFC's ruling should be reinstated, and the sum should be increased from Rs. 500/- as it would be difficult to comply with at this time.
- Regarding section 125 of the CrPC, the law is insufficient.
- It was determined in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr. (AIR 1999 SC 3348) that the standard of proof of marriage is not a strict requirement with regard to the offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and that if it is demonstrated that both the husband and wife were living together, it can be concluded that both are legally weeded spouses and an obligation of maintenance should be granted.
- The respondent argued that the second marriage is void from the start; thus, it becomes relevant that maintenance would not be awarded. The term "wife" refers to those who are married and excludes those who are not married.
Judgment:
- According to section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the term "wife" should refer to a person who has been legally wed. Because the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 declares that marriages between women and men performed according to Hindu rites are invalid under the law and that granting maintenance would violate the provisions of that law, the definition of "wife" as used in section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies only to legally wedded women.
- The amount of maintenance would be increased from Rs. 500 to Rs. 850 as there is no cap on the amount of maintenance as of the Civil Procedure Code modification of 2001. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.
Analysis:
- It has been ruled that while the legislature thought it necessary to bring an illegitimate child within the purview of Section 125, it did not do so with regard to women who were not legally married.
- There is no room for expanding the legislative intent of Sec. 125 of the Cr PC by introducing any artificial definition to include women who are not lawfully married in the term "wife," regardless of how desirable it may be to take note of the plight of the unfortunate woman who unknowingly enters into wedlock with a married man. This may be a legal inadequacy, which only the legislature can rectify.
- Even if it is true that the husband treated the woman like his wife, it really doesn't matter. Not the party's attitude, but the legislature's objective is what matters. It is not possible to use the estoppel principle to get around Section 125 of the Cr PC.
Conclusion:
This represents a change in strategy from the earlier interpretation of the term "wife" advanced in earlier cases like Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat & Others where the term "wife" was construed to mean only a legally wedded wife (which would obviously exclude a second wife, despite the possibility that the second wife may have been tricked into thinking she is the first wife).
