Introduction
The landmark judgment of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State of Gujarat delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2005 dealt with an important and sensitive issue: whether a woman in a relationship resembling marriage but without a legal or valid matrimonial tie is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The case reaffirmed the statutory position on who qualifies as a “wife” under Section 125 CrPC and clarified the legal standing of women in relationships outside the scope of valid marriages for the purposes of claiming maintenance.
Background of the Case
Facts:
- The appellant, Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya, claimed to have been married to one Somabhai Bhatiya according to Hindu rites.
- Somabhai, however, was already legally married to another woman, and that marriage was still subsisting at the time of his relationship with Savitaben.
- Savitaben sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on the basis of being his wife.
Contention:
- The husband contested the claim, arguing that Savitaben could not be treated as his “wife” under Section 125 CrPC because his legal marriage to his first wife was subsisting, and any subsequent marriage would be void under Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Findings by the Lower Courts:
- The Magistrate awarded maintenance to Savitaben.
- The decision was upheld by the Sessions Court.
- However, the Gujarat High Court reversed it, ruling that Savitaben was not legally entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, and she approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Observations
The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and made several critical observations:
- Strict Definition of ‘Wife’ under Section 125 CrPC
The Court held that a woman whose marriage is void because of the subsistence of a prior legal marriage of the man cannot be treated as a ‘wife’ within the meaning of Section 125 CrPC. - Reference to Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, one of the conditions for a valid Hindu marriage is that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of the marriage. If this condition is violated, the marriage is void under Section 11 of the Act. - Precedent Reliance
The Court relied on earlier judgments like Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs Anantrao Shivram Adhav & Anr. (1988) to reiterate that the status of a ‘wife’ under Section 125 is confined to a legally valid marriage. - Sympathy vs. Statutory Position
The Court expressed empathy for the plight of women like Savitaben but maintained that judicial sympathy cannot override clear statutory provisions. If any change is warranted, it has to be made legislatively.
Legal Principles Established
- Only a legally wedded wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- A marriage contracted while a prior legal marriage of either party subsists is void and does not confer any legal right to claim maintenance.
- Judicial empathy for a de facto partner’s economic vulnerability cannot override statutory limitations — any such extension of legal protection would require legislative amendment, not judicial interpretation.
Conclusion
The Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State of Gujarat case reaffirmed a strict interpretation of personal law and maintenance provisions under the CrPC. It highlighted the need for legislative reforms to address the vulnerabilities of women in non-legally recognized relationships, especially in a socio-cultural context where such relationships may be entered into without knowledge of a pre-existing marriage.
While the judgment stayed within the bounds of statutory interpretation, it indirectly prompted debates on the legal status and rights of women in relationships resembling marriage — a concern later addressed in progressive rulings like Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) and D. Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal (2010).
Citation:
For a detailed understanding, you can refer to the full judgment here: Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State of Gujarat
Important: Kindly Refer New Corresponding Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, (BNSS); & Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, (BSA) for IPC; CrPC & IEA used in the article.
Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.
Adcocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)
Contact: 88271 22304