SAVITABEN SOMABHAI BHATIYA versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 638 · Decided: 10-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SAVITABEN SOMABHAI BHATIYA 
v. 
ST A TE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
MARCH I 0, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 125: 
C 
Maintenance- 'Wife '-Meaning of-Held: Expression 'wife' refers only 
to a legally married wife-Scope of section 125 cannot be enlarged to include 
woman not lawfully married-However, illegitimate child is included 
Marriage of woman as per customary rites with a man having a living 
spouse-Maintenance to second wife and child-Claim of-Entitlement-Held: 
D Earlier marriage of the husband established by sufficient evidence by courts 
below, as such marriage of husband with the claimant void and section 12 5 
does not include woman not lriwfully married-Also claimant cannot apply 
principle of estoppel by taking a plea that she was not informed about the 
husband's earlier marriage-Further, the submission that husband was treating 
E claimant as his wife is irrelevant--Therefore, claimant not entitled to 
maintenance-With regard to the maintenance to the child quantum of 
maintenance awarded by High Court enhanced-Ifstoppel-Applicability of 
Object of Section 125-Held: Is enacted for social justice to protect 
wife, children and parents unable to maintain themselves-Such provision 
F should be construed so that social object is fulfilled-Interpretation of statutes. 
Personal law governing parties, effect of on Section 12 5-Held: Personal 
law governing parties do not affect the application and enforceability of section 
125-However, personal law is relevant for deciding the validity ofmarriage-
Once applicant's status is established, her application for maintenance can be 
G maintained-Hence, personal law governing parties cannot be ignored 
a/together. 
H 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 and Hindu Adoption 
and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 18-Held: There is no inconsistency 
638 
S.S. BHATIYA v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
639 
between the two laws, the scope being different. 
The question which arose for consideration in the appeal was with 
regard to the status of marriage of a woman according to the customary rites 
and rituals of their caste with a man having a living spouse and her entitlement 
to maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
A 
and also the quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the child born to them. B 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The expression 'wife' as per Section 125 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 refers to only legally married wife and does not 
give protection to woman who unwittingly gets into relationship with a C 
married man. The word 'wife' is not defined in the Code except indicating in 
the Explanation to Section 125 its inclusive character so as to cover a divorcee. 
A woman cannot be a divorcee unless there was a marriage in the eye of law 
preceding that status. Therefore, the expression must be given the meaning 
in which it is understood in Jaw as applicable to the parties. The marriage of 
a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse 
is a complete nullity in the eye of law and therefore, she is not entitled to the 
benefit of Section 125 of the Code or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 
[643-G-H; 646-C-D) 
Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr., AIR 
D 
(1988) SC 644, relied on. 
E 
1.2. Law operates harshly against the woman who unwittingly gets into 
relationship with·a married man. This may be an inadequacy in law, which 
only the legislature can undo. The legislature has included within the scope 
of the provision an illegitimate child but it has not done so with respect to 
woman not lawfully married. The legislative intent being clearly reflected in F 
Section 125 of the Code, there is no scope for enlarging its scope by introducing 
any artificial definition to include woman not lawfully married, in the 
expression 'wife'. [643-G, 647-B-C) 
1.3. In the instant case, the courts below found sufficient evidence on 
record by recording findings of fact that earlier marriage of respondent-
husband was established and as such the marriage of the respondent with 
the appellant-claimant was void. Further, the plea that the appellant was not 
informed about the respondent's earlier marriage when she married him is 
of no avail. The principle of estoppel cannot be pressed into service to defeat 
G 
the provision of Section 125 of the Code. Also the submission that the husband H 
640 
SUPREME COURT R

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