The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the term “wife” has to be interpreted broadly to provide maintenance even in cases where a marriage may be considered void or legally invalid.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar of the high court also made it clear that the court was bound to infer the existence of a relationship “in the nature of marriage” for the purpose of maintenance, when the parties were cohabiting as spouses following the completion of essential marriage rituals.

Justice Brar further asserted the subsistence of a first marriage would not prevent a spouse from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, if she had been residing with a person as his wife. The ruling came in a case where marriage between the couple was solemnised during the subsistence of first marriage. The Bench during the course of argument was told that the family court was of the opinion that the petitioner-wife was not entitled to maintenance as the parties were merely in a live-in relationship and not married.

Taking up the matter, Justice Brar observed a perusal of the record indicated that second marriage had been performed by both the petitioner and the respondent-husband. A reasonable inference could be drawn in the matter that the parties were cohabitating as husband and wife after the performance of “necessary marriage ceremonies” till September 2015, when the respondent-husband allegedly discovered that the petitioner had married for the second time. ”

Before parting with the order, Justice Brar remanded the matter back to the District Judge, Family Court, Barnala, to decide upon the quantum of maintenance.