Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Posted on April 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice A.K.Sikri in a 2-judge bench had held that, for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman (who is not a legally wedded wife), is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

From Para 25,

25. Thus, while interpreting a statute the court may not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. It is this mischief rule, first propounded in Heydon’s Case[11] which became the historical source of purposive interpretation. The court would also invoke the legal maxim construction ut res magis valeat guam pereat, in such cases i.e. where alternative constructions are possible the Court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road block in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. We should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the husband for defrauding the wife. Therefore, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Citations: [2014 SCJ 2 779], [2014 CRILJ 1076], [2014 SCC 1 188], [2013 SCALE 12 681], [2014 CRLJ SC 1076], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 764], [2013 CTC 6 86], [2014 AIR SC 256], [2014 NCC 1 238], [2013 RLW SC 4 3670], [2013 AIOL 3407], [2013 AD SC 11 9], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 830], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 946], [2014 JLJR SC 1 78], [2014 LW CRL 1 646], [2014 SCC CIV 1 51], [2013 JCC SC 4 2765], [2014 LW 2 936], [2013 ACR 3 3010], [2014 MPHT 2 499], [2014 GLH 1 273], [2013 KERLT 4 367], [2013 ALR 101 704], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 616], [2013 SLT 9 543], [2013 DMC 3 518], [2014 ECRN 1 241], [2014 AIR SC 869], [2013 JT 13 570], [2013 AIC 132 108]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15901386/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af37e4b0149711415daf

Earlier Chanmuniya judgment is here.

Ajay Bhardwaj Vs Jyotsana and others on 23 November, 2016

Posted on January 6, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Just read this judgment from P&H HC which held that, even thought when there is a subsisting marriage under HMA, living-together with another man or giving birth to twins with him, can be termed as marriage-like relationship.

Ajay Bhardwaj Vs Jyotsana and others on 23 November, 2016

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

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark ruling from Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that

“We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.”

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

But in a para prior to this para, this case was referred to a larger bench (this was a 3-judge bench). But this case was but after two years dismissed as the advocate for appellant dies and the appellant did not pursue the case. Here is the Dismissal Order:

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr on 5 September 2014

Here is the Para 45,

45.We, therefore, request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to refer the following, amongst other, questions to be decided by a larger Bench. According to us, the questions are:
1. Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?
2. Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
3. Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

So, this judgment is NOT a landmark judgment as the question of law was NOT decided either by this Court nor by a larger bench of this Court.

Citation: [2011 ANJ SC 1 26], [2010 AIOL 681], [2011 SCC 1 141], [2011 ALLMR CRI SC 346], [2010 SCALE 10 602], [2011 BOMCR SC 2 787], [2011 SCC CRI 2 666], [2011 CRLJ SC 96], [2010 RCR CIVIL SC 4 801], [2010 JT 11 132], [2010 AIR SC 6497], [2011 SCC CIV 1 53]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949767/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aedbe4b0149711414ea0

But this judgment declared it so here.

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Kamala and Others Vs M.R.Mohan Kumar on 24 October, 2018

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in this judgment that, as 125 CrPC proceedings are Summary in nature, no need of strict proof required for marriage between parties. It reiterated the law laid down in the judgment of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha here.

Kamala and Others Vs M.R.Mohan Kumar on 24 October, 2018

Sidhappa Satappa Savali Vs Smt. Mahananda Sidhappa Savali on 08 December, 2015

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a judgment from Bombay High Court wherein it was held that, as 125 CrPC proceedings are Summary in nature, no need of strict proof required for marriage between parties.

Sidhappa Satappa Savali Vs Smt. Mahananda Sidhappa Savali on 08 December, 2015

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 – No Strict Proof of Marriage Required

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Ajay Bhardwaj Vs Jyotsana and others on 23 November, 2016

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

Kamala and Others Vs M.R.Mohan Kumar on 24 October, 2018

Sidhappa Satappa Savali Vs Smt. Mahananda Sidhappa Savali on 08 December, 2015