Bombay High Court: In the present petition, the husband challenged the orders of the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge granting Rs 4,000 per month maintenance to the wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). He alleged that their marriage was invalid as the wife had used a forged death certificate of her previous husband, which made her not entitled to maintenance.
A Single Judge Bench of M.M. Nerlikar, J., while dismissing the petition held that assuming the death certificate was forged, that alone was not sufficient to deny the wife’s claim. The Court emphasised that the husband failed to show the wife’s earlier marriage was still in existence, and merely stating the death certificate was forged did not prove her previous husband was alive.
Background:
The husband and wife were married on 03-06-2008 at Gram Panchayat Sonori, Akola. It was a second marriage for both, as the husband’s first wife had died of cancer and the wife’s previous husband had also passed away. Within a month of marriage, the husband allegedly began harassing and ill-treating his wife. She was abused by the husband, his son, and other family members, who also demanded Rs 30,000 from her. Eventually, she was driven out of the house and went to live with her parents.
The wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance. However, the husband contested the claim. Consequently, while that case was pending, the husband filed two criminal cases against the wife, alleging forgery and use of forged documents to claim benefits of the Government schemes like a scholarship for her daughter. These cases were still pending, and process orders were issued after police inquiry.
After evidence was led, the Magistrate granted the wife maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month from the date of her application. The husband challenged this order, claiming the marriage was void because the wife had allegedly submitted a forged death certificate of her previous husband. He argued that the marriage violated Section 5(I) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘Hindu Marriage Act’) and was void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He claimed to have proved the forgery and said the burden was on the wife to prove her husband was dead.
The wife denied any forgery and maintained that the marriage was valid. She argued that the husband failed to prove her previous husband was alive or that her earlier marriage was still subsisting. She alleged that the husband filed multiple cases only to harass her and had not concluded any of them. In the absence of legal findings in those cases, she asserted that merely on the contentions of the husband, maintenance could not be denied.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court examined the death certificate of the wife’s first husband, which was alleged to be forged, during the cross-examination of the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, who stated there was no entry in the birth and death register. The Court observed that even if the death certificate was forged, that alone was not sufficient to deny the wife’s claim. Further, the Court noted that in the entire evidence, it was not brought on record by the husband that the earlier marriage was still subsisting, and therefore, the marriage was void.
The Court found it necessary to consider Section 101 of the Evidence Act ,1872 (‘Evidence Act’), which stated that a person who asserted the existence of a fact must prove it. The Court noted that the husband failed to prove the existence of the earlier marriage, and therefore, it could not be said that the marriage between husband and wife was void. Even if, for the sake of discussion, the marriage was void, the Court held that the wife was still entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The Court emphasised that Witness 1, the wife, and Witness 2, the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, in whose presence the marriage took place, specifically deposed that on 03-06-2008 the marriage was solemnized at about 10:00 a.m. The Court noted it was clear that the marriage was solemnized. Further, the Court observed that the wife proved she was unable to maintain herself and had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC, while it was also brought on record that the husband had sufficient means.
For the grant of maintenance, the Court noted that the wife satisfied the ingredients under Section 125 CrPC. The Court further emphasised that the husband failed to bring on record that the marriage between the wife and her deceased husband was still in existence, and that merely stating the death certificate was forged did not prove he was alive.
The Court highlighted that the husband filed two cases against the wife regarding the forged death certificate, which were still pending despite 10—15 years having passed, therefore, the Court refrained from giving any finding on the death certificate. The Court also noted that a Regular Civil Suit was filed by the husband seeking declaration and injunction to declare the marriage certificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, as illegal and arbitrary, and to restrain the wife from using the husband’s name, however, the suit was also pending. Therefore, the only question the Court considered was whether the wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and whether the Courts below committed any error in granting it.
The Court referred to N. Usha Rani v. Moodudula Srinivas, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 225, wherein, while considering the scope of ‘wife’ under Section 125 CrPC, the Supreme Court, invoking its social justice prerogatives, affirmed that a second wife could claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even if her first marriage was subsisting. The Court noted that it was crystal clear that the wife was entitled to maintenance since both the Courts concurrently held that she was entitled to it, and this finding of fact could not be disturbed unless the contrary was brought on record.
The Court held that the reliance placed by the husband on Sections 106, 107, and 108 of the Evidence Act was misplaced and did not require a detailed finding in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no merit in the petition and consequently dismissed it.
[Gokul Yashwant Gopnarayan v. Sangeeta Gokul Gopnarayan, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3674, decided on 07-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: R.D. Dhande
For the Respondent: A.B. Mirza
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
