LexBAD SHAH versus SOU.URMILA BADSHAH GOOSE & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 259 BAD SHAH A V. SOU.URMILA BADSHAH GOOSE & ANR. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.19530/2013 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.8596/2013 B OCTOBER 18, 2013 [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.125 -Application C under, of respondent no. 1 for maintenance - Contested by petitioner on ground of maintainability - Plea of petitioner that he was already married and the said marriage was subsisting on the date of his alleged marriage with respondent no.1, who, therefore was not the legally wedded wife of petitioner and D therefore had no right to move application u/s. 125 CrPC - Held: In the instant case, the marriage between the parties was proved - However, the petitioner was already married - He duped respondent no. 1 by suppressing the factum of alleged first marriage - On these facts, the petitioner cannot be E permitted to deny the benefit of maintenance to respondent no.1, taking advantage of his own wrong - The Court as the interpreter of law is supposed to supply omissions, correct uncertainties, and harmonize results with justice through a method of free decision - "fibre recherche sceintifique» i.e. F "free Scientific research" - Purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of s. 125, CrPC - At least for the purpose of s. 125 CrPC, respondent no. 1 would be treated as the wife of the petitioner- If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the petitioner for G defrauding respondent no. 1 - Maxims - "construction ut res magis valeat guam pereat" - Hindu Law. The respondents filed application under Section 125, 259 H 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A Cr.P.C. alleging that respondent No.1 was the wife of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was their daughter, who was born out of the wedlock. The petitioner contended that he never entered with 8 any matrimonial alliance with respondent No.1 in 2005, as claimed by respondent No.1 and also denied co- habitation with her and claimed that he was not the father of respondent No.2 either. According to the petitioner, he had married 'S' in 1979 and from that marriage he had two children and 'S' had been residing with him ever since C their marriage. The trial court arrived at the finding that the petitioner was married to 'S' and was having two children out of the wedlock, however, at the time of solemnizing the D marriage with respondent No.1, the petitioner intentionally suppressed this fact from her and co-habited with respondent No.1; and awarded maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and to respondent No.2 (daughter) at the rate of Rs.500/- per E month. The order was upheld by the revisional Court and the High Court, and therefore the present petition. Before this Court, the petitioner disputed the legal obligation qua respondent No.1 only. The petitioner contended that since he had proved that he was already F married and the said marriage was subsisting on the date of marriage with respondent No.1, this marriage was void and respondent No.1 was not legally wedded wife and therefore had no right to move application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. G H Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. In so far as respondent No.2 is concerned, who is proved to be the daughter of the petitioner, in no BADSHAH v. SOU.URMILA BADSHAH GOOSE 261 case he can shun the liability and obligation to pay maintenance to her. [Para 8] [268-D-E] 2.1. The marriage between the parties has been proved. However, the petitioner was already married. But he duped the respondent no.1 by suppressing the factum of alleged first marriage. On these facts, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of maintenance to the respondent no.1, taking advantage of his own wrong. At least for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., respondent No.1 would be treated as the wife of the petitioner. [Paras 14, 16] [272-B-C; 273-8] A B c 2.2. Further, purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125,Cr.P.C. While dealing with the application of destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is D dealing with the marginalized sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the Constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. While giving interpretation to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.