Can't put seal of confirmation on bigamous relationship: Court

A Delhi court has denied maintenance in a domestic violence case to a woman who had entered into second wedlock within 23-days of first marriage, saying "courts cannot affix its seal of confirmation on any bigamous relationship."
Additional Sessions Judge Manoj Jain allowed the appeal of
The second husband of the woman against a trial court order which had directed him to pay interim maintenance of Rs 4000 to the woman and had held that there was a domestic relationship which means live-in relationship under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act.
Noting that the first wedlock entered by the woman was still valid as she had not taken a decree of nullity of her marriage before entering into her second marriage allegedly by suppressing facts, the court said, "unless and until, a decree is obtained, she continues to be the legally wedded wife of her first husband."

It further held, "in the present case when the woman was already married and rather ostensibly suppressed such facts and entered into second marriage without getting her first marriage declared as void, she cannot claim herself to be in a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage."
The court said, "Any valid marriage cannot be dissolved by oral understanding. Laws are meant to be respected and followed and not defeated by mutual agreement. Courts cannot affix its seal of confirmation on any bigamous relationship."

Observing that it was the second husband who appears to be aggrieved rather than the woman, the judge said, "I may also hasten to add that no one can be permitted to reap fruits of one's own wrongs. Woman despite knowing well that she was already married kept the second husband in the dark and now wants maintenance from him."

"It somewhat appears in the present scenario that it is the second husband who is aggrieved and not the woman," the court said while noting that the woman had entered into the second wedlock merely within 23 days of her first marriage.
The judge said that only those live-in relationships are qualified and recognised for maintenance purpose where the parties can also lawfully enter into a marriage.
"They (parties) may not eventually marry but they must be, at least, eligible to marry each other. Viewed from that angle, woman here cannot seek maintenance," the judge said.
Quashing the trial court order of directing the second husband to pay maintenance to the woman, the court said, "there was no domestic relationship between the two and, therefore, the trial court should have dismissed the main petition filed by the woman seeking compensation under PWDV Act. Appeal is accordingly allowed.