Delhi High Court: In an application seeking impleadment in maintenance proceedings under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), a Single Judge Bench of Dr Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., dismissed the plea filed by the respondent-husband’s second wife, holding that she was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband. The Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are confined to adjudication of the statutory rights and obligations inter se the claimant-wife, children, and the husband, and cannot be unnecessarily widened by permitting impleadment of third parties claiming indirect interest in the outcome of the case.
Background
The marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnised on 20 January 2005 at an Arya Samaj Mandir and was subsequently solemnised again in the presence of family members on 30 April 2006. Two children were born out of the wedlock, namely, a daughter and a son. Matrimonial disputes arose between the parties during 2018-2019, following which the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA, 1955) seeking restitution of conjugal rights in October 2019. The petitioner-wife opposed the said petition, which was later withdrawn in May 2022. Meanwhile, in April 2022, the petitioner-wife instituted divorce proceedings against the respondent on the ground of cruelty, and thereafter, in August 2022, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) HMA, 1955 alleging cruelty and desertion by the petitioner-wife.
During the pendency of the matrimonial disputes, the petitioner-wife also instituted proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and the two minor children. By judgment dated 16 January 2024, the Family Court allowed the respondent-husband’s divorce petition and dissolved the marriage after holding that the petitioner-wife had treated the respondent with cruelty and had deserted him. Subsequently, by judgment dated 16 April 2024 passed in the maintenance proceedings, the Family Court granted maintenance of ₹10,000 per month each to the two minor children but denied maintenance to the petitioner-wife under Section 125(4) CrPC on the ground that she was residing separately from the respondent without sufficient cause. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-wife preferred the present revision petition before the High Court.
Thereafter, the respondent-husband solemnised a second marriage with the applicant on 29 July 2024, after expiry of the statutory period for challenging the decree of divorce. In the meantime, the petitioner-wife challenged the divorce decree dated 16 January 2024 before the Delhi High Court by filing MAT.APP. (F.C.) 256 of 2024, wherein the Division Bench, vide order dated 13 August 2024, stayed the operation of the divorce judgment and decree. In the present proceedings, the second wife moved an application seeking impleadment on the ground that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that any adjudication in the maintenance proceedings may affect her rights. The petitioner-wife opposed the application contending that the dispute pertains solely to maintenance between the petitioner, her children, and the respondent-husband, and that the second wife is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings.
Analysis
The Court observed that the issue for consideration was whether the applicant, claiming to be the second wife of the respondent-husband, was liable to be impleaded as a party in the present revision petition arising out of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
At the outset, the Court reiterated the settled distinction between a “necessary party” and a “proper party”, observing that a necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed, whereas a proper party is one whose presence enables the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the issues involved in the lis. Reliance was placed on Nazra Khatoon v. Mohd. Zafar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8377, wherein the principles governing impleadment of parties were reiterated. The Court emphasised that no third party can be added to proceedings unless such person satisfies the test of being either a necessary or a proper party.
Applying the aforesaid principles, the Court held that the applicant-second wife was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present proceedings. The Court noted that the revision petition was confined to the claim of maintenance by the petitioner-wife and the children against the respondent-husband, and the rights and obligations arising under Section 125 CrPC were inter se between the petitioner and the respondent alone. It was observed that the applicant’s apprehension that she may be adversely affected if maintenance were granted to the petitioner-wife did not confer upon her any right of impleadment. The Court further held that if such a plea were accepted, every person claiming dependency upon a respondent from whom maintenance is sought would seek impleadment, thereby unnecessarily enlarging the scope of summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and defeating their expeditious nature.
The Court also rejected the contention that impleadment was necessary since the applicant had married the respondent after a decree of divorce had been passed in his favour. The Court noted that the said decree of divorce had already been stayed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the validity and effect thereof remained sub judice. It was further observed that even a divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC subject to statutory conditions, and therefore the petitioner-wife’s entitlement could not be defeated merely because of the respondent’s subsequent marriage. The Court clarified that while determining maintenance, the respondent’s overall financial liabilities and obligations towards dependents, if any, could always be placed before the Court by the respondent himself. In this regard, reliance was placed on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for determining maintenance, including consideration of the respondent’s financial obligations towards dependents.
Rejecting the plea of violation of principles of natural justice, the Court held that such principles are attracted only where a person’s direct and substantial legal rights are under adjudication. Since no relief had been sought against the applicant and no adjudication regarding her marital status or independent rights was involved in the present proceedings, any effect on her would merely be indirect or incidental.
Decision
The Court therefore concluded that the applicant’s presence was neither necessary nor required for effective adjudication of the revision petition and that her impleadment would only unnecessarily widen the scope of the proceedings and cause avoidable delay. Accordingly, the impleadment application was dismissed, while clarifying that the observations made were confined only to adjudication of the application and would not prejudice the parties in the pending proceedings.
Also Read: All HC: Qualified wife not entitled to maintenance under Section 24 HMA | SCC Times
Also Read: No liability of maintenance upon daughter-in-law towards parents-in-law: All HC| SCC Times
[X v. Y, CRL. REV. P. (MAT.) 171 of 2024, decided on 5-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Meera Kaura Patel, Ritika Saini, Monika Chowdhary, Shailesh Chandra Jha, Advocates