Bakulabai and Anr. vs Gangaram and Anr., 1988 1 SCC 537

Advertisements

Introduction:

Marrying a Hindu Male already married and his wife Living validity of Legitimacy of the child born out of such wedlock entitlement of maintenance for such women and child. The basic underlying intent and purpose of all the provisions dealing with the maintainability of children are to safeguard the interest of children. In this case, the code of criminal procedure 1973 section 125 and 397(3) maintenances for wife and children, and the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 sections 11 and 16 of Hindu Woman marries a Hindu guy who is already married to and still has a wife validity Legitimacy entitlement to maintenance for such woman and child.

Facts of the case:

In the current case, Appellant Bakulabai Lawfully Married to the Respondents Ganga Ram Maruti was born out of this wedlock.  In accordance with section 125 of the code of criminal procedure, the Appellant submitted a request for maintenance on behalf of both herself and her son. The respondent denied the marriage and Maruti’s paternity while admitting that he had already been married twice before the Appellant proposed the wedding and that both the wives were still alive. And the section applied to the Code of criminal procedure 1973 section 125 and 397 (3) maintenance for wives and children and Hindu Marriage Act 1955 section 11 and 16 of Hindu women.

Issues involved:

• Whether an illegitimate child born out of a marriage between a woman and a legally married man has a living wife entitled to maintenance?
• Whether a Bigamous child entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure?

Related Provisions:

Sections 11, and 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 concern maintenance. The law does not recognize an illegitimate wife’s claim, but an illegitimate kid may make a support claim. Criminal P.C. (1973), S.125: “Marriage of a woman by Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity and she is, therefore, not entitled to benefit of S.125 of Cr.P.C. or the Hindu Marriage Act.” (Paras 19-23).

The contention of the Petition:

The appellant filed a section 125 crpc application before the judicial magistrate, seeking maintenance for herself and her son and asserting that the son was born out of wedlock and that they were legally married to the respondents.

The revision application made by the appellant to dispute the order was inadmissible because it was barred by section 397(3) of the CRPC.

The contention of the Respondent:

The respondent, However, the respondent denied the marriage and the paternity of her son, saying that he had already been married twice and that both of his wives were still living.

The judicial magistrate did not record a categorical decision as to whether the already married man’s wife was still alive or the date of his marriage, but instead granted maintenance at a rate of Rs. 100 per month in her favor and Rs. 50 per month for her young son.

Judgment:

• Bakulabai filed an application under section 125 of the Code of criminal procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the code) According to the Hindu marriage act 1955 the plea that respondent could not marry a third time in a row. This could be rejected by the judicial magistrate by saying that, according to Respondents his second marriage was rule and void as his first wife was then alive. If the story of the first marriage could not have been held to be void on that ground.
• Besides holding that the fact the magistrate category said that the appellant and the respondent lived together as husband and wife for some years and the appellant 02 was their two children if a matter of fact a marriage although ineffective in the eyes of law he must be treated as their child on the basis of the. Finding a judicial magistrate.
• The order of the judicial magistrate treated allowing the maintenance trade allowing the maintenance once of appellant no 02 was correctly passed in view of the fact that money value has gone down due to inflation and the child has grown in the age of maintenance increased.
• No error of law appears in the judgment of the magistrate and so the revisional court was not justified in making a reassessment of the evidence and substituting their own views of their magistrate.

Criminal Appellate jurisdiction:

The judgment of the court was delivered by Sharma. Appeal no 1 of bakulabai filed an application under section 125 of CRPC to the judicial magistrate alleging that she was not lawfully married to response no 1 ganga ram and that appellant no 2 Maruti was born out of his wedlock but he was already married twice before the wedding 790 pleaded by Bakulabai and that both his wives were living. The judicial Magistrate accepted the Bakulabai case Ganga Ram moved to sessions judge in revision Bakulabai but also filed a revision application enhancement of the rate of maintenance and admission the application for thus allowed and the wife’s application was dismissed. The High Court rejected the same holding that since it was the second revision application by the wife it was not maintained. On the revision of the application before it, the high court took an overview of the provision of sub-section (3) of section 397 valid.

Conclusion:

In this present case in the bakulabai v. Ganguram the child born as a result of such union acquires legitimate status under Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and such child is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though bigamous marriage is against the law under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when after such marriage Hindu male and female are living together for a number of years as husband and wife.

This article is written by Tannu Jolly, Law College Dehradun, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Admin