Maintenance Under Crpc

Maintenance under the CrPC is secular in nature, as any woman belonging to and practicing any religion or faith can approach the Court under this. The
law of maintenance is given under the Sections 125-128 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and is civil in nature. Under this Section, maintenance can be
claimed by the wife, children and parents. Section 125 to 128 provide for a speedy, effective and rather inexpensive remedy against persons who neglect or
refuse to maintain their dependent wives, children and parents.

According to (b) part of the Explanation to the Section 125, the term “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from,
her husband and has not remarried. So the provision for maintenance under this section extends to a divorced wife also, and not only a married wife.

This law, though secular, is gender specific in one aspect. Maintenance under this law can only be claimed by the wife, and not by the husband. The
interpretation of the word “wife” also needs to be looked into. According to the Supreme Court judgment in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of
Gujarat the term “wife” appearing in Section 125(1) means only a legally wedded wife. But, in the recent judgments of D. Velusamy v. D.
Patchaiammal and Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha the Supreme Court ruled that in cases where the woman who was in a marriage-
like relationship, will though not be considered to be a legally wedded wife under Section 125, can still claim maintenance under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The purpose of Section 125 CrPC was explained in the case of K. Vimal v. K. Veeraswamy, where it was held that Section 125 of the Code had
been introduced for achieving a social purpose. The aim of this section is the welfare of the wife by providing her with the required shelter, food
after the separation from the husband. It was held in this case that if the wife has lived like a wife and the husband had treated her like a wife for
all the years before their separation, then, the wife cannot be denied maintenance by her husband.

Grants of maintenance are a metric of social justice. A man’s essential obligation is to provide for his wife, kids, parents, close relatives, etc, while
they are incapable of providing for themselves. Preventing immorality and poverty while improving the economic standing of women and children
is the motive behind the concept of maintenance. The CrPC requirements obligate a person to fulfil the moral duty to which he owes the
community in regard to his wife, children, and parents. The obligation is unquestionably lawful and binding on the person.

The provision found in Chapter IX of CrPC seeks to shield the neglected wife, parent, and children (minor) from complete ruin and destitution
through a straightforward, quick, and effective restricted relief. Section 125 of CrPC offers a swift solution to prevent famine and social unrest. It
differs from a husband’s civil liability. It serves as a straightforward summary procedure. It puts into practice a man’s fundamental obligation to
support his wife, kids, and elderly parents who are self-supporting.
The fundamental tenet of the maintenance stance under Section 125 of the CrPC is that no wife, young children, or elderly parents should be left
without and succumb to complete pressure of wants in order to be persuaded to resort to crimes, etc. A Magistrate of the First Class may take swift
action to avoid poverty under a provision in Section 125 of the CrPC.

So, with such great emphasis on the wife being a legally wedded wife, what happens to the second wife, in religions that only allow monogamous
relationships?
A woman who is the second wife is also entitled to the right of maintenance under Section 125 when there is sufficient evidence to prove that she was
unaware of her husband’s previous wedding and the second wedding was performed in accordance with the personal laws. Thus supreme court
judgment on maintenance observed that second wife is not entitled to maintenance generally but where she was unaware of husband’s first marriage
she is entitled to maintenance under section 125.
Legal status of second wife
The section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 states that any marriage between two Hindus is null and void if it contravenes any one of the
conditions specified in the clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5.

In the case of Bai Jivatbai Jethmal vs Milkiram Deepchand And Anr the defendant had a spouse living at the time of second marriage. The court in
this case held that the second marriage is declared null and void as per the section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 because the first marriage
was not dissolved at the time of the second marriage. The Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 states that any marriage solemnized before or
after the commencement of the act can be dissolved by the decree of divorce. The section also contains the grounds by which divorce decree can be
granted.

However, in the case of a void marriage, the marriage in itself is void and therefore, there is no need to take the divorce decree as from the starting
only the marriage is considered to be null and void as per law.
In the case of Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, the husband converted to another religion in order to have a second wife even when the first marriage was
not dissolved. The court in this case held that under the Hindu Marriage Act, a bigamous marriage is prohibited and has been constituted as an offence
under Section 17 of the Act therefore any marriage solemnized by the husband during the subsistence of the first marriage would be an offence triable
under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 494 IPC.

Maintenance of second wife under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956
The section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956 states that a Hindu wife shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her
life time. The subsection (2) (d) of the section 18 states that a Hindu wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to
maintenance if he has any other wife living.

Here the term any other wife living states that the act is not only considering the first wife but also the rights of the second wife can be protected.
It is agreed that according to Hindu personal Laws, bigamy or polygamy is treated as void. However, the second marriage is a common practice
in our country. Also, the rights of the second wife are not properly protected under the law. Therefore, the main question which comes into
picture is that is the second wife entitled to claim maintenance as per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956.

In the case of Narinder Pal Kaur Chawla v. Manjeet Singh Chawla the husband did not disclose the fact that he is already married and he
married the petitioner as per the ceremonies of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. The Delhi high court in this case held that the second wife,
whose marriage is void has a right to be maintained under the section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance act of 1956 because she was
not knowing the fact that the defendant is already married and if maintenance is not provided then this would encourage the defendant to defraud
the second wife.

Also, in the case of Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, the court stated that the husband is bound to maintain the second wife and the wife is
to be treated as a legally wedded wife because firstly, it was the husband who did not disclosed that he was already married and secondly, they
both were living as husband and wife.
But in the case of Mangala Bhivaji Lad v/s Dhondiba Rambhau Aher the court stated that as per sections 5 (i) and 11 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, the second marriage is to be treated as void and therefore, the husband is not bound to maintain the second wife as she is not the legally
wedded wife.
From the above cases it is observed that there is absence of the clear provision regarding the maintenance of the second wife as per the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 therefore, the claim for maintenance depends on the discretion of the judges.

In the case of Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Ors the petitioner and the Respondent married as per the Hindu rites and customs. After
the marriage, the couple stated living together. But one day a lady came and claimed her to be the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner mentally
tortured the respondent therefore, she left the matrimonial home. The respondent then claimed maintenance from the petitioner. The main question
before the court was that is the respondent entitled to get maintenance as per section 125 of CRPC even when the marriage between them was
void. However, the petitioner argued that the expression wife in Section 125 means only a legally-wedded wife and the section 5 of the Hindu
Marriage Act of 1955, prohibits second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage so respondent in this case cannot claim any
maintenance.
Even in the case of, Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr The court interpreted the meaning of expression 'wife'
and stated that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term "wife" which would also include even those cases where
man and woman are living for a long period of time as husband and wife.

In the case of In Rameshchandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga the court said that it is agreed that as per the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955,
the second marriage is void and such marriages are illegal as per the provisions of the Act, but still they are not 'immoral' and hence a
financially dependent woman cannot be denied maintenance on this ground.

Therefore, it is well established that under the section 125 of CRPC, the second wife is also entitled to get maintenance if she is not in a
position to maintain herself.