Recently, the Chattisgarh HighbCourt ruled that Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the wife should include not only a lawfully wedded wife but also a woman married in fact by the performance of necessary rites.

The bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey was dealing with the criminal revision filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act against the order passed by the Family Court.

In this case, the husband and wife lived together for some time after marriage. However, the wife said that after some days she was physically and mentally tortured by the applicant-husband. She would be confined in a closed room without food for days. 

She also claimed that the husband had illicit relations with another lady, therefore, he did not reside with her. She was deserted by her husband and forced to take shelter at her parental house. She claimed Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance from the applicant/husband.

The Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the wife and directed the husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance.

The bench referred to the case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another, and where it was held that “Hindu women married after coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in accordance with Hindu rites with a Hindu male having a wife living, held, not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 as such marriage is void ipso jure under Section 11 of the Act.”

The High Court observed that under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the term ‘wife’ should be given a wider and extended meaning so as to include therein not only a lawfully wedded wife but also a woman married in fact by the performance of necessary rites or following the procedure laid down under the law and the husband is under obligation to prove that the wife was married to some other person.

The court also stated that the husband and the wife were known to each other, there were some transactions in the bank account of the non-applicant/wife and receipts of hotels revealed that they have stayed many times in many hotels, and marriage was solemnized between them in a Temple. Therefore the court opined that the order passed by the Family Court does not require any interference by this Court.

In view of the above, the bench rejected the criminal revision.

Case Title: Ashok Shrivastava v. Anju Samudri Shrivastava