Karnataka HC Denies Maintenance to Second Wife Who Knew of Pending Divorce Appeal Before Marrying
The Dharwad Bench held that a woman who admitted knowing of a subsisting marriage cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, distinguishing the Supreme Court's ruling in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse.
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad has dismissed a revision petition filed by a woman seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after finding that she could not establish either a valid marriage to the respondent or that he had concealed facts from her. Justice Geetha K.B., sitting singly, upheld the order of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi, dated 22 April 2025, which had dismissed the maintenance petition in Crl.Misc.No.386/2021. The court drew a sharp line between the facts before it and the ratio in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188, holding that the protection extended to a defrauded second wife does not extend to one who entered the relationship with knowledge of the husband's subsisting first marriage.
The Dispute Before the Family Court, Belagavi
Annapurna S. Hippargi, the petitioner, claimed that she married Siddaram @ Siddaramappa Hippargi on 1 July 2018 at Subhodhi Boudh Vihara Mangal Karyalaya, Nerli, Hukkeri Taluka, Belagavi District, following Hindu rites and customs. Before agreeing to the marriage, she said, she had verified a judgment and decree dated 31 March 2015 in M.C.No.176/2011, which dissolved the respondent's earlier marriage with one Madhushri @ Savitri. Satisfied that he was a divorcee, she married him. She contended that after eight days of co-habitation, the respondent treated her with cruelty — locking her inside the house and directing her not to open the windows — forcing her to leave. She filed the maintenance petition on the ground that she was unable to maintain herself.
The respondent denied the marriage entirely. He stated that his divorce decree in M.C.No.176/2011 had been challenged before a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in MFA No.101347/2015, and that the Division Bench had stayed that decree. His marriage with Madhushri @ Savitri was therefore still subsisting, making any purported marriage with the petitioner void. He also pointed out that the petitioner had filed a domestic violence petition in Crl.Misc.No.253/2021 before the JMFC-IV, Belagavi, and a dissolution petition in M.C.No.282/2022 before the Family Court, Belagavi. He stated that he suffered from Arthritis and Osteoporosis and could not walk properly.
The petitioner produced 19 documents, including photographs with a CD and a Section 65-B certificate from the Evidence Act. The respondent led no evidence but cross-examined the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the Family Court dismissed the maintenance petition, finding that the divorce decree had been stayed in MFA No.101347/2015 and the first marriage therefore subsisted, and that the petitioner had knowingly contracted the second marriage in those circumstances.
The Legal Question: When Does Badshah Apply?
The pivotal question before Justice Geetha K.B. was whether the petitioner could bring herself within the protection that the Supreme Court extended in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse. In that decision, the Apex Court held that where a husband conceals the fact of a subsisting first marriage and induces a woman to marry him, he cannot later deny her maintenance under Section 125 CrPC by pointing to the legal invalidity of the second marriage. The court applied a purposive construction to Section 125 and the mischief rule, and held that in such circumstances the second wife would be treated as a legally wedded wife for the purpose of maintenance. The Supreme Court expressly restricted the contrary decisions in Yamunabai, (1988) 1 SCC 530, and Savitaben, (2005) 3 SCC 636, to situations where the second wife married with full knowledge of the subsisting first marriage.
Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.V. Gunjal, argued that the petitioner was unaware of the stay order in MFA No.101347/2015, that the respondent had suppressed this fact, and that she was therefore entitled to maintenance on the Badshah principle. He also relied on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Smt. Monika alias Satyawati v. State of UP and Another, Criminal Revision No.196/2024, where maintenance was upheld on a factual finding that the husband had fraudulently concealed the subsisting marriage.
Counsel for the respondent, Sri S.C. Subbannavar, contended that the petitioner had knowledge of the subsisting marriage, had insisted on the marriage regardless, and had produced fabricated photographs before the Family Court. He argued the Family Court had rightly dismissed the petition.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Geetha K.B. framed two questions: whether the petitioner had established that she was the wife of the respondent, and whether she had established that the respondent married her by suppressing the stay order in MFA No.101347/2015. Both were answered in the negative.
On the question of marriage, the court noted that while strict proof of marriage is not required for a Section 125 petition, the petitioner herself claimed a Hindu customary marriage. In cross-examination, however, she deposed that no Saptapadi ritual was performed and no sacred fire was lit. She then said the ceremony was performed as per Bauddha religion. The photographs produced with a Section 65-B certificate did not state who had taken the photographs from her Redmi mobile, and the respondent had disputed their authenticity both in his objection statement and during cross-examination.
On the concealment question, the court's reasoning was more pointed. The petitioner admitted in cross-examination that before marrying the respondent she had examined the divorce decree, and that she married him voluntarily after learning he was a divorcee. She also admitted that she did not know about the stay order in MFA No.101347/2015, but conceded that because of that stay order the respondent's first marriage with Madhushri @ Savitri was still subsisting, and that she knew the appeal was pending before the Division Bench.
The court held that a diligent person, having been told that a prior marriage was dissolved by decree, would make efforts to verify whether any appeal against that decree was pending. The petitioner held a Ph.D. in Kannada Philosophy and had worked as a Lecturer at Hukkeri College in 2015. She was, in the court's words, “not an illiterate person” and was “worldly wise.” The court found that a person of her educational standing could not credibly claim ignorance of the possibility of an appeal against a divorce decree.
Equally significant was what the petitioner's pleadings did not say. Even after the respondent raised the pendency of MFA No.101347/2015 in his objection statement, the petitioner made no averment — neither in her petition, nor in her affidavit evidence, nor in cross-examination — that the respondent had suppressed the pendency of that appeal or the stay order when he married her. The court treated this omission as fatal. Without a specific plea of fraudulent concealment, the foundation of a Badshah claim simply did not exist.
The court distinguished both Badshah and the Allahabad High Court's decision in Monika on this basis. In both those cases, there was a factual finding that the husband had fraudulently concealed the first marriage from the second wife. In the present case, no such concealment was alleged or proved. The respondent had openly disclosed his earlier marriage and divorce. What he did not disclose — or what the petitioner did not verify — was the appeal and stay. That, the court held, was not the kind of concealment that Badshah was designed to address.
On the Question of Employment
The petitioner had also argued that the respondent had not allowed her to work when she was living with him, and that she was therefore unable to maintain herself. The court found no such plea in her evidence. She had admitted that she worked as a Lecturer in 2015. It was not put forward by her that the respondent had made her resign her job before or after the marriage. In the absence of such a plea, the court found no basis to grant maintenance on that ground either.
Order
Justice Geetha K.B. dismissed the revision petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The order of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi, dated 22 April 2025, dismissing the maintenance petition in Crl.Misc.No.386/2021, stands.