Maintenance plea of woman rejected

A family court in the city has dismissed a woman’s plea for maintenance after she failed to prove that her marriage was valid.

The 35-year-old woman applied for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC after her second husband applied for a divorce in 2014, one year after their marriage. Both of them had disclosed the fact that they had been previously married, but the matter of divorce was not discussed between them.

During hearings of the case it turned out that the man had legally divorced his first wife, while the woman had not initiated formal divorce proceedings against her previous husband.

The problems between the couple started early on in the marriage, with the woman even filing a dowry harassment case against her second husband. The husband denied the charges but had to stay in police custody for 10 days. It was after this that he filed for divorce. When the maintenance case came up for hearing, the judge noted that she had not asked for maintenance from her first husband, even thou-gh she had a child with him.

The court observed that going by her own claims, she had lived for six years without support before the second marriage, which established that she could do so without maintenance from her second husband as well.

The second husband argued that he could not pay as he had medical liabilities.

The court finally noted that, “Petitioner could not prove that her marriage with the respondent (husband) is legally valid. Petitioner can’t take advantage of her own wrongs. Person with unclean hands is not entitled for maintenance relief.” Lawyers say this is an unusual verdict as the family court almost always approves maintenance pleas in divorce cases.

The Supreme Court in 2013 in Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & another had stated that for bigamous marriages, where the husband concealed the fact about his first marriage, the woman is entitled to receive maintenance. However, in this case, as the woman had failed to prove she had been divorced, the case went in favour of the man.

DURING HEARINGS it turned out that the man had legally divorced his first wife, while the woman had not initiated formal divorce proceedings against her previous husband.

LAWYERS SAY this is an unusual verdict as the family court almost approves maintenance pleas.