High Court: Read “wife” liberally in order to pay maintenance

In a landmark ruling that offers a more comprehensive legal and societal viewpoint on unions, child support, and social welfare, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has established that the term “wife” must be construed widely to include maintenance even in situations where a marriage may be deemed null and void.

The high court’s Justice Harpreet Singh Brar also made it apparent that where parties were living together as spouses after fulfilling the necessary marriage rites, the court had an obligation to presume the existence of a connection “in the nature of marriage” for maintenance purposes.

Justice Brar went on to say that if a woman had been living with someone as his wife, her prior marriage would not have prevented her from requesting support under Section 125 of the CrPC. The decision was made in a situation where the couple’s first marriage was still going strong at the time of the marriage. The bench was informed during the argument that the family court believed the petitioner-wife was not entitled to maintenance since they were just living together and not married.

Taking up the case, Justice Brar noted that a review of the documentation revealed that the petitioner and the respondent-husband had both entered into second marriages. After the “necessary marriage ceremonies,” it is fair to assume that the parties were living together as husband and wife until September 2015, when the respondent-husband allegedly found out that the petitioner had gotten married a second time.

Judge Brar remitted the case to the District Judge of the Family Court in Barnala to determine the amount of support before issuing the order.