Void Marriages Do Not Bar Maintenance U/s. 125 CrPC: Madras HC While Dismissing Petition Against Family Court's Order
The Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition against the maintenance order of the Family Court under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), observing that the respondent had failed to showcase enough evidence to quash the maintenance order.
The Court noted that the first petitioner's marriage to the respondent could not be considered valid as the respondent's first marriage was still subsisting but for purposes of Section 125 Cr.PC the first petitioner could be considered the wife of the respondent. In this context, the bench noted, "No doubt, since the first marriage is still subsisting, the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent even if proved, cannot said to be valid".
Justice K. Murali Shankar asserted, “Considering the above, this Court is of the clear view that for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C, the first petitioner can very well be considered as wife and the second petitioner as the son of the respondent. Hence, the finding of the trial Court that the petitioners are entitled to get maintenance from the respondent cannot be found fault with”.
The Court further observed, “Considering the above and also the present economic scenario and the status of the parties, the fixation of the monthly maintenance at Rs.10,000/- for each of the respondents is very much reasonable and the same cannot be said to be excessive. The revision petitioner has not advanced any other reason or ground to impugn the order”.
Advocate H. Arumugam, appearing on behalf of the first petitioner, contended that the respondent had been harassing her for dowry, and she had to return to her parent's house to give birth to her child (second petitioner). After the child was born, the husband refused to live with her unless she paid more dowry.
Advocate A. Mohamed Hasim, appearing on behalf of the respondents, asserted that the respondent was already married to another woman and that his marriage with the first petitioner was invalid. Therefore, there was no valid claim of maintenance.
The Court observed, “As rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, the respondent's deliberate cheating and fraudulent intention can very well be gathered from the stand of the respondent that he did know the first petitioner before filing of the maintenance case and that there was no relationship between him and the petitioners”.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Loyola Selva Kumar v M.Sharon Nisha and Anr.
