K. VIMALA versus K. VEERASWAMY

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 20-03-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
K. VIMALA 
V. 
K. VEERASWAMY 
MARCH 20, 1991 
(A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMI AND M. FATHIMA 
BEEVI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 125-Scope and 
object of-Wife's application for maintenance-Husband's plea of mar-
riage being void on account of subsistence of his earlier marriage-Held 
Court should insist on strict proof of earlier marriage-Insurance nomi-
nation and entry in Jndenty Card are not conclusive of subsistence of 
earlier marriage. 
The appellant-wife filed an application for maintenance against 
"y 
respondent-husband under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Proce-
D 
dure, 1973. The respondent contested the application on the ground 
that appellant was not his legally wedded wife since their marriage was 
void on account of subsistence of respondent's earlier marriage. The 
Magistrate awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs.400 to the wife by 
holding that the respondent has not proved his first marriage. The 
order of the Jfagistrate was set aside by the 'High Court in revision 
E 
accepting the respondent's plea that his first rttarriage was subsisting 
J. 
when the respondent married the appellant. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the respon-
dent that the High Court had no material before it for arriving at the 
finding that there was an earlier valid marriage on the date the respon-
F 
dent married the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant 
to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and 
G 
destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing 
and shelter to the deserted wife. The term 'wife' includes a woman who 
has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her 
husband and has not remarried. The woman not having the legal status 
of a wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the term 'wife' 
H 
consistent with the objective. However, under the law a second wife 
whose marriage is void on account of the survival of the first marriage is 
904 
' \ 
.._. 
K. VIMALA v. K. VEERASWAMY [FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 
905 
not a legally wedded wife and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance 
under this provision. Therefore, the law which disentitles the second 
wife from receiving maintenance from her husband for the sole reason 
that the marriage ceremony though performed in the customary form 
lacks legal sanctity can be appllied only when the husband satisfactorily 
proves the subsistence of a legal and valid marriage particularly when 
the provision in the Code is ameasure of social justice intended to pro-
tect women and children. Accordingly, when an attempt is made by the 
husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife depicting her as a 
kept-mistress on the specious plea that he was already married, the 
court should insist on strict proof of the earlier marriage. [907D-H] 
2. The respondent has not discharged the heavy burden by 
tendering strict proof of the fact in issue. He clearly admitted his mar-
riage with the appellant according to Hindu rites. But there is no clear 
admission of his earlier marriage to dispense with the proof of subsist-
ing valid first marriage when the second marriage was solemnised. In 
the absence of such an admission, the statement that the respondent was 
living with another woman as husband and wife cannot persuade was 
court to hold that the marriage duly solemnised between the appellant 
and the respondent suffers from any legal infirmity. [906C-H] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
3. The· ~omination in the Insurance Policy and Entry in the 
Identity Card, referred to by the High Court are not conclusive of the 
subsistence of a valid· marriage between the respondent and his earlier k 1 
wife. The High Court has failed to consider the standard of proof 
required and has proceeded on no evidence whatsoever in determining 
the question against the appellant. Accordingly the order of the High 
Court is set aside and the order of the Magistrate is restored. [907B-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
p 
No. 664 of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.1990 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 532 of 1989. 
K. Ramkumar for the Appellant. 
B. Kanta Rao for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
FATHIMA BEEVI, J. The appellant and the respondent got 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991] 1 S.C.R. 
married

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.