Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution and therefore deserves liberal interpretation. Long cohabitation raises a strong presumption of marriage unless rebutted by convincing evidence. A man should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of a de facto marital relationship while escaping the corresponding legal obligation of maintenance. Since earlier Supreme Court decisions held that "wife" means only a legally wedded wife, the Bench referred the conflict to a larger Bench instead of deciding it.

advocatemmmohan

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Maintenance – Long cohabitation – Presumption of marriage – Scope of expression "wife" – Reference to Larger Bench

Question of Law

Whether a woman who has lived with a man as his wife for a considerable period, though unable to establish a strictly valid marriage, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Held

The Bench expressed the view that the expression "wife" in Section 125 CrPC deserves a broad and purposive interpretation in light of the social object of the provision and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, since earlier coordinate Bench decisions (Yamunabai and Savitaben) had taken a contrary view, the matter was referred to a larger Bench for authoritative determination.

---

Ratio (Persuasive)

1. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution and therefore deserves liberal interpretation.
2. Long cohabitation raises a strong presumption of marriage unless rebutted by convincing evidence.
3. A man should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of a de facto marital relationship while escaping the corresponding legal obligation of maintenance.
4. Since earlier Supreme Court decisions held that "wife" means only a legally wedded wife, the Bench referred the conflict to a larger Bench instead of deciding it.

Supreme Court of India

Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010

 2010 AIR SCW 6497, 2011 (1) SCC 141, 2011 CRI. L. J. 96, AIR 2010 SC (SUPP) 29, (2010) 4 RECCRIR 704, (2013) 1 DMC 131

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Husband – Void marriage – Suppression of subsisting first marriage – Whether accused can avoid prosecution by pleading that second marriage is void – Held, No.

advocatemmmohan

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Husband – Void marriage – Suppression of subsisting first marriage – Whether accused can avoid prosecution by pleading that second marriage is void – Held, No.

Question of Law

Whether a man who suppresses his subsisting first marriage, induces a woman into a void marriage and thereafter subjects her to cruelty can avoid prosecution under Section 498A IPC on the ground that the second marriage is void in law.

Held – No.

The expression "husband" occurring in Section 498A IPC cannot be construed in a narrow technical sense so as to defeat the object of the provision. A man who deceives a woman into a marital relationship by concealing his earlier subsisting marriage cannot escape criminal liability by relying upon the invalidity of the very marriage brought about by his own fraud. Section 498A extends to void or voidable marriages and relationships in the nature of marriage, provided the ingredients of cruelty are otherwise established.

Ratio Decidendi

• A beneficial penal provision enacted to suppress social evil must receive a purposive interpretation.
• The accused cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong by pleading that the marriage is void because of his own suppression of the earlier marriage.
• The expression "husband" in Section 498A is not confined to a legally valid marriage but extends to void, voidable and relationship-in-the-nature-of-marriage cases where cruelty is alleged. 

Karnataka High Court

Dr Lokesh B H vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2025

Whether a husband can, in collateral proceedings for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, rely merely upon a marriage certificate of the wife's alleged earlier marriage to contend that the subsequent marriage is void and thereby deny maintenance, without first obtaining a decree of nullity from a competent court.

advocatemmmohan

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 – Section 11 – Void marriage – Whether decree of nullity is invariably necessary before treating marriage as void – Disputed earlier marriage – Collateral proceedings – Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Question of Law:
Whether a husband can, in collateral proceedings for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, rely merely upon a marriage certificate of the wife's alleged earlier marriage to contend that the subsequent marriage is void and thereby deny maintenance, without first obtaining a decree of nullity from a competent court.

Held: No.

Although a marriage contravening Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act is void ab initio and ordinarily need not await a decree of nullity, where the very fact or validity of the alleged earlier marriage is seriously disputed, the marital status cannot be determined in collateral maintenance proceedings. Until a competent court declares the marriage void, the parties must be treated as husband and wife for the purpose of relief under the Domestic Violence Act. Mere production of a marriage certificate under the Special Marriage Act is insufficient to conclusively determine marital status in such proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi:
The principle that a void marriage is void ipso jure does not dispense with the necessity of a judicial declaration where the foundational facts rendering the marriage void are themselves disputed. In such circumstances, a competent civil court alone can adjudicate the validity of the marriage. Until such adjudication, collateral courts cannot deny statutory benefits by assuming the marriage to be void.

---

Paras Relied Upon (AIR Style)

• Paras 13–14: Issue identified; necessity of first determining marital status before deciding maintenance.
• Paras 15–18: Discussion of Yamunabai, M.M. Malhotra, and distinction where earlier marriage is disputed.
• Para 19: Core ratio—where the alleged earlier marriage is disputed, declaration by a competent court is necessary; collateral proceedings cannot decide validity merely on the basis of a marriage certificate.
• Paras 20–21: Consequential relief restoring maintenance.

Deoki Panjhiyara vs Shahshi Bhushan Narayan Azad & Anr on 12 December, 2012

2013 AIR SCW 168