Badshah v. Sou Urmila Badshah Godse and Another (2014) 1 SCC 188 (Case Summary)

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India expanded the interpretation of “wife” under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code to include women in void marriages, protecting their right to maintenance even when unknowingly marrying an already married man.

Table of Contents

Facts of Badshah v. Sou Urmila Badshah Godse

Respondent No. 1 (Urmila) married the petitioner (Badshah) in 2005 after getting divorced from her first husband in 1997.
After 3 months of marriage, another woman (Shobha) came to their house claiming to be Badshah’s wife.
Urmila was already pregnant at this time and continued living with Badshah despite ill-treatment.
Respondent No. 2 (Shivanjali) was born in November 2005.
Urmila later left Badshah’s house and filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC for herself and her daughter.
Badshah denied the marriage and claimed he was already married to Shobha since 1979.

Issues framed

Whether Urmila can claim maintenance as a “wife” under Section 125 CrPC when her marriage to Badshah is void due to his existing marriage?
Whether a liberal interpretation should be given to the term “wife” in Section 125 CrPC for maintenance purposes?

Subordinate Court Judgment

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) granted maintenance to respondent No. 1 (Urmila) at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month and to respondent No. 2 (Shivanjali) at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The JMFC found that Urmila had proved her marriage to the petitioner and that he had neglected to maintain them despite having sufficient means.

The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner (Badshah) and affirmed the JMFC’s order granting maintenance to Urmila and Shivanjali.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in its judgment dated 28.2.2013, upheld the lower courts’ decisions. The High Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition filed by the petitioner and confirmed the award of maintenance to Urmila and Shivanjali as granted by the JMFC and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

Judgment of Badshah v. Sou Urmila Badshah Godse

In the Supreme Court, the case primarily involved the interpretation of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents.

The Supreme Court applied a purposive and expansive interpretation to the term “wife” in Section 125 CrPC. The Court held that for the purpose of maintenance under this section, a woman in a void marriage should be treated as a wife if she was unaware of the husband’s previous marriage. The Court distinguished this case from previous judgments that denied maintenance to women who knowingly married already married men.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s (Badshah’s) appeal and upheld the maintenance order for respondent No. 1 (Urmila) and respondent No. 2 (Shivanjali). The Court stated in paragraph 14: “He cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of maintenance to the respondent, taking advantage of his own wrong.” The Court emphasized the need for “social justice adjudication” and the importance of interpreting laws to bridge gaps between legal provisions and societal realities, especially in cases involving gender justice and the welfare of marginalized sections of society.