Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse Case Summary 2014

Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse Case Summary 2014

In Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse case the issue was clarified that if a man marries for a second time while he is already married, then is the second wife entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC?

According to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, polygamy i.e., having two spouses at the same time, is prohibited and is a punishable offence under Section 494 of the IPC. In the eyes of the law, only the first wife is considered as the legally wedded wife and therefore possesses the right to claim maintenance and avail other rights that are a wife is entitled to.

EQUIVALENT CITATIONS: (2014) 1 SCC 188

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, Justice A.K. Sikri

FACTS OF BADSHAH vs. URMILA GODSE CASE:

  • The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on February 10th, 2005 according to Hindu Marriage customary rites at Devgad Temple in Hivargav-Pavsa, following which the respondent resided and cohabitated with the petitioner. While the respondent was pregnant with the petitioner’s child, a lady named Shobha came to their house and claimed to be the petitioner’s wife.
  • The respondent claims that the petitioner told her that if she wanted to live with him, she should cohabit with Shobha and live quietly and peacefully with them or return to her parent’s house. Since she was pregnant, she decided to live with the petitioner and Shobha in the same house.
  • The respondent had to undergo a lot of physical and mental torture on a regular basis at the hands of her inebriated husband. The petitioner mistreated the respondent as he believed that the baby in her womb was not his and accused her of having relations with someone else.
  • He also insisted that the respondent must have an abortion. As the petitioner’s mistreatment and abuse became unbearable, the respondent returned to her parent’s residence. The respondent’s daughter, Shivanjali (Respondent No. 2) was born on November 28th, 2005. The respondents applied for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), based on the abovementioned averments.
  • The Trial Court issued an award of maintenance to respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and to respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month, which was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
  • The petitioner appealed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, wherein the decision of the lower court was upheld and an order dated 28th February 2013 was passed. The petitioner filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India to appeal against the judgement and order of the Bombay High Court.

LEGAL ISSUES

  • Whether the marriage between the respondent and the petitioner was legally valid and whether she was the wife of the petitioner?
  • Whether the respondent entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC?

CONTENTIONS

  • The petitioner claimed he was never married to the respondent and that the respondent was a habitual liar, who had a history of making false accusations and was attempting to blackmail him. He denied that he ever cohabitated with the respondent and denied that he was the father of Respondent No. 2.
  • The petitioner stated had Shobha was his wife whom he had married on February 17th, 1979 and they had two children: a daughter 20 years old and a son 17 years old, and Shobha had lived with him since their marriage.
  • The counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988), wherein it was held that after the enforcement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a Hindu woman who had married a Hindu man who had a living lawfully wedded wife could not be considered a “legally wedded wife,” and therefore her demand for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC could not be maintained.
  • It was contended that the term “wife” which refers to legally wedded wife under section 125 of CrPC cannot be stretched beyond legislative intent. Section 5(1)[i] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 expressly forbids a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, and therefore the respondent cannot assert any equity; and that clause (b) of Section 125 CrPC. mentions the word “divorce” as a category of the claimant, implying that only a legally wedded wife may claim maintenance.
  • He argued that since the petitioner had established that he was already married to Shobha and that the marriage was still valid on the date of marriage with the respondent; the marriage was void, and respondent had no legal right to apply under Section 125 of the CrPC.
  • The respondent contended that she had been married to the petitioner and had cohabitated with her, during which she had been subjected to domestic violence, and physical and mental torture. Her daughter, Shivanjali (respondent No 2) was born out of wedlock and the petitioner was the father of her daughter. The petitioner is therefore liable to provide maintenance for her and her daughter, under Section 125 of the CrPC.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Justice A.K. Sikri: The respondent has credibly proved, by providing cogent and strong evidence, that she was married to the petitioner.

When the petitioner and respondent got married, the petitioner kept the respondent in the dark about his first marriage.

It gave the respondent a false representation that he was single and competent of entering a marital tie with the respondent.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner should not be permitted to use his own misdeed to deprive the respondents of the right to claim maintenance by filing a petition under Section 125, CrPC solely because the respondent is not the petitioner’s “legally wedded wife”.

DECISION

The Supreme Court observed that the marriage between the parties had been proved but the petitioner was already married but he deceived the respondent by withholding the fact of the alleged first marriage.

The Court held that for Section 125 CrPC, respondent would be treated as the wife of the petitioner and opined that the petitioner cannot be allowed to deny the respondent the benefit of maintenance by exploiting his own mistake. The apex court denied the leave to the petitioner and dismissed the special leave petition.

CONCLUSION

In cases, where the court comes across a scenario where a man marries for the second time by keeping the wife in dark about the first marriage and a living first wife, this judgement acts as a precedent.

The Supreme Court rightly opined that Section 125 of the CrPC must be given a purposive interpretation as the courts deal with the deprived parts of society when they deal with the application of a destitute wife, hapless children, or parents under this clause.

The aim is to achieve the constitutional vision of social justice’, enshrined in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. The courts should follow the approach adopted by the apex court in Badshah v. Urmila Godse case while dealing with matters pertaining to gender justice.

Found Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse case summary useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from family law that will help you in your preparation here >>> FAMILY LAW

Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT

Share on print
Print PDF
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on twitter
Twitter
See Legal News, Judgements, Jobs Monthwise

Recent Posts

About Us

Law Planet is specially created for law enthusiasts. We provide courses for various law exams. We also write about law to increase legal awareness amongst common citizens.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG!