LANDMARK JUDGMENT ON MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION RIGHTS

Article on the judgment of  Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. (2014), a Landmark judgment on the issue of maintenance and Protection of Women.

The Supreme Court's judgment in Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr., (2014) 1 SCC 188, stands as a significant decision addressing the rights of women deceived into marriage and seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"). The Court took a progressive and purposive interpretation of maintenance laws to protect the interests of women in vulnerable positions, reiterating the principle that justice must trump legal technicalities.

Background of the Case:

The appellant, Badshah, had married the respondent, Urmila, in 2005 according to Hindu rites. However, it was later revealed that Badshah was already married to another woman, and that marriage was still subsisting. Upon discovering this deceit, Urmila sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Badshah contested her claim, arguing that since their marriage was void under Hindu law (due to the existence of his first marriage), she was not a "legally wedded wife" entitled to maintenance.

Legal Issues:

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

• Whether a woman who has been duped into a marriage by a man concealing his existing marriage can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?

Badshah's contention relied heavily on the technical reading of the law — that only a legally wedded wife could claim maintenance, and since their marriage was void ab initio, Urmila had no standing.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning:

The Court, rejecting the technical defense raised by Badshah, adopted a purposive interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. It observed:

• Section 125 CrPC is a welfare provision intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution by ensuring that a woman (or other dependents) is not left without means of subsistence.

• Purpose over Technicality: The Court emphasized that the law must be interpreted to advance its purpose, not to allow an offender to take advantage of his own wrongs.

• Protection of Deceived Women: If a woman is tricked into marriage by a man concealing a material fact (like an existing marriage), she must not be penalized for his misconduct. Allowing such a man to escape liability would defeat the very purpose of Section 125.

The Court cited earlier precedents like Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) and Savithri v. Govind Singh Rawat (1986) to underline that even women in relationships resembling marriage (de facto relationships) could, under certain conditions, be entitled to maintenance.

Thus, the Court held that Urmila was entitled to maintenance despite the technical voidness of the marriage.

Conclusion:

The Badshah judgment is widely cited in maintenance and domestic relationship cases, especially involving bigamy or fraudulent marriages. It has significantly influenced later jurisprudence where courts increasingly recognize the rights of women in relationships that might not strictly meet the legal definition of "marriage" but create similar dependencies and expectations. In the broader context, it aligns with India's constitutional commitment to gender justice under Articles 14, 15, and 21.