Bombay High Court Denies Maintenance to Woman Who Concealed First Marriage

The Bombay High Court in Mumbai has dismissed a petition filed by a woman seeking maintenance, ruling that a person who acts deceitfully by concealing a subsisting first marriage cannot claim maintenance under beneficial legal provisions. Justice M.M. Sathaye upheld a sessions court order that denied maintenance to the woman while continuing financial support for her minor son.

The legal dispute began in 2010 when the woman first approached a magistrate's court. She alleged that her husband had subjected her to physical and mental harassment, demanded money, and abandoned her and their child shortly after their marriage. The woman sought a monthly maintenance of ₹15,000 each for herself and her son, claiming her husband owned agricultural land and earned an income from a godown.

In response, the husband argued that the woman had concealed her prior marriage and had married him without obtaining a divorce from her first husband. Because the marriage was subsequently declared null and void, he contended she was not entitled to maintenance. The husband did not dispute the child's claim for support.

In 2015, a magistrate's court directed the husband to pay ₹2,000 per month to the woman and ₹1,000 per month to the child. However, a sessions court later set aside the maintenance awarded to the woman while retaining the monthly payment for the child. The woman then challenged this decision in the High Court.

Before the High Court, the woman argued that she was the legally wedded wife and, being unable to support herself, was entitled to maintenance. The husband maintained that the annulment of the marriage meant she did not qualify as a wife under the law.

Justice Sathaye observed that while the term wife is often interpreted broadly to include women in long-term relationships resembling marriage, this case was different. The court noted that the couple had lived together for barely four months and the woman had concealed her existing marriage.

The court held that the concealment vitiated her claim, stating that a party cannot be permitted to take advantage of his or her own wrong. Consequently, the High Court upheld the denial of maintenance to the woman and dismissed her petition.