The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband against a Family Court order granting maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court held that even in cases where a formal decree of divorce from a first marriage was not obtained, a woman is entitled to maintenance if the husband was aware of the prior marriage at the time of their wedding.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife) was solemnised on May 26, 2009. Shortly after the parties cohabited in New Delhi, the relationship turned sour. The respondent alleged that the petitioner subjected her to physical assault and misbehavior, eventually leading her to move to her mother’s house. Being dependent on her family following her father’s death, she approached the Family Court seeking maintenance. On February 27, 2018, the Family Court at Patiala House Courts awarded her ₹3,000 per month and ₹11,000 as litigation expenses.
Arguments by the Parties
The petitioner challenged the order, primarily arguing that the respondent was not his legally wedded ‘wife’ under Section 125 CrPC. His counsel argued that the respondent had failed to disclose her previous marriage and that she had not obtained a formal divorce from her first husband. It was further contended that the respondent had described herself as the wife of the first husband in legal applications filed after her marriage to the petitioner.
The respondent’s counsel countered that the petitioner had failed to lead any evidence during the Family Court proceedings despite being served. It was submitted that the respondent had lived with her first husband for only one month and had not seen or heard from him for 12 years, leading to a presumption of his death. Crucially, the respondent argued that the petitioner and the local community were well aware of her history when the second marriage was solemnised.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the Family Court had provided a well-reasoned order on the validity of the respondent’s status as a ‘wife’. The Court noted that while a formal divorce decree was absent, the respondent successfully substantiated that her first husband had been missing for over a decade.
The Court highlighted that the petitioner had failed to prove he was unaware of the prior marriage. Referring to the Supreme Court’s stance in N. Usha Rani & Anr. vs. Moodudula Srinivas, Justice Banerjee noted:
“…the Hon’ble Supreme Court even upheld the right of the wife therein to claim maintenance from her second marriage though no formal decree of divorce was passed in her first marriage, considering that the husband therein was unable to prove that he was unaware of the said prior marriage…”
The Court emphasized that the term ‘wife’ under Section 125 CrPC should be construed liberally to achieve the social-welfare objectives of the law. It observed:
“The term ‘wife’ under Section 125 CrPC does not warrant strict construction, being a beneficial measure to secure the rights of a dependant woman and for her financial and social protection.”
The Court also noted that the petitioner chose not to lead any evidence before the Family Court to dispute these facts, and therefore, no fresh adjudication was required on those grounds.
Decision
The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the Family Court’s order dated February 27, 2018. Holding that the scope of interference in a revision petition is limited, the Court dismissed the petition along with all pending applications, upholding the maintenance awarded to the respondent.
Case Details
Case Title: Sh. Raj Kumar vs. Smt. Poonam Sharma
Case No.: CRL.REV.P. 485/2018
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Date: May 06, 2026
