MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125 CRPC NOW 144 BNSS
1. Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC 479 discussed the dominant purpose of Section 125 CrPC , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as follows-
15 ... While dealing with ... section 125 cCrPC clearly is that the wife , child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress ,destitution and starvation "
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj vs Sita Bai , (2008) 2 SCC 316 , pertains to the legal position of Section 125 CrPC ws reiterated stating that the provision was a measure of social justice , specially enacted to protect women and children and it thereby fell within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 of the constitution of India.
MAINTENANCE IN A VOID MARRIAGE
knowledge that one party knew of the previous marriage or customary divorce cannot validate a marriage which is void ab initio in the eyes of law. therefore it is usually held that such marriages were subsisting at the time of the second marriage . The subsequent marriage is, in clear contravention of Section 5(i) of the HMA and is void under Section 11 . As far as the issue of interim maintenance pendente lite and permanent alimony/maintenance, it is well settled that the grant of maintenance pendente lite or permanent alimony under Section 24 & 25 of the HMA respectively, is not precluded merely because the marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of HMA. MAT.APP. (F.C.) 236/2019, Pronounced on: 29 .05 .2026 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
In voidable marriage, the applicable section is Section 23(1)(a) which is considered , however in case of void marriages the applicable section is Section 11 for contravention of Section 5 (i) of the HMA, which have distinct legal consequences. Marriages solemnized in contravention of Section 5(i) are distince from those falling under Section 5(ii)(a), (b) and (c) thereof. Section 23(1)(a) has no application to void marriages which are solemnized in violation of Section 5(i).
In Bhimashya v. Janabi, (2013) 13 SCC 627, the Supreme Court held that a valid custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, and continuously observed.
In Saraswathi Ammal v. Jagadambal, (1953) 1 SCC 362, the Supreme Court held that a custom may be proved through authoritative texts, judicial recognition, or long and continuous usage.
Anveesh Sood v. Tithi Sood, (2012) SCC OnLine Del 2445
In that case, the wife received significant sums under the settlement and then resiled. Contempt in this case since he took money and did not go ahead with second motion.
In Rajat Gupta (supra), this Court emphasised the same principle and held that the learned Family Court cannot proceed with the second motion if mutual consent no longer exists. This view was again reaffirmed in Vineeta Daulet Singh (supra).
Ref : CHHAVI AGARWAL versus ANURAG GOEL (DHC) Pronounced on: 01.07.2025
INCOMPLETE SERVICE OF NOTICE
Notice sent for service on Respondent received with Remark says "unclaimed ". In such cases Service is deemed complete in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another , (1999) 7 Supreme court Cases 510 . Also refer to order passed by the Registrar's court in order dated 13.10.2023 in T.P (C) 2090/2019 has held as under -
The word ‘refusal’ can be interpreted in synonymous to the word “unclaimed”. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decisions, when a notice is served to the proper address of the addressee, it shall be deemed to be served unless contrary is proved. Thus, when the notice is returned as unclaimed, it shall be deemed to be served and it is proper service. Therefore, service of notice to the sole respondent which has returned as unclaimed is considered as deemed to be served but none has entered appearance.
