Trace Your Case

BADSHAH V. SOU. URMILA BADSHAH GODSE & ANR

Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr, (2014) 1 SCC 188

ISSUE:

  • Whether the respondent has a right to claim for maintenance in an invalid marriage?

RULE:

  • In some cases for the sake of claiming maintenance under section 125 women can be considered as a wife.

FACTS:

  • The respondent (Urmila Badshah) was married to Popat Fapale and got divorced as well. Then she married the petitioner.
  • On-demand of the petitioner for her marriage through mediators, she married him at Devgad Temple situated at Hivargav-Pavsa. Her marriage was performed with the petitioner as per Hindu Rites and customs. After her marriage, she resided and cohabited with the petitioner.
  • After about three months of her marriage with the petitioner, one lady Shobha came to the house of the petitioner and claimed herself to be his wife.
  • On inquiring from the petitioner about the said lady Shobha, he replied that if she wanted to cohabit with him, she should reside quietly. Otherwise, she was free to go back to her parent’s house.
  • When Shobha came to the house of the petitioner, respondent No.1 was already pregnant from the petitioner. Therefore, she tolerated the ill-treatment of the petitioner and stayed along with Shobha.
  • The petitioner started giving mental and physical torture to her under the influence of liquor. The petitioner also used to doubt that her womb is begotten from somebody else and it should be aborted.
  • When the ill-treatment of the petitioner became intolerable, she came back to the house of her parents. Respondent No.2, Shivanjali, was born, the respondents claimed for maintenance.
  • The petitioner contested the petition by filing his written statement. He dined his relation with respondents Nos.1 and 2 as his wife and daughter respectively.
  • He alleged that he never entered with any matrimonial alliance with respondent No.1 on 10.2.2005, as claimed by respondent No.1 and in fact respondent, No.1, who was in the habit of leveling false allegations, was trying to blackmail him. He also denied co-habitation with respondent No.1 and claimed that he was not the father of respondent No.2 either.
  • The magistrate held that the petitioner is liable for maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500 to respondent No.2.
  • The same was held by the Bombay High Court.
  • The petitioner sought for leave petition.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court that respondent No.2 is concerned, who is proved to be the daughter of the petitioner, in no case he can shun the liability and he has obligation to pay maintenance to her.
  • The court relying on few cases decided that the respondent is considered as a wife for the purpose of section 125 and she will be entitled to maintenance.
  • The court dismissed the petition.