At the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, Justice M.M. Nerlikar on Tuesday (October 7, 2025) delivered a judgment that underscores the social justice spirit of Indian maintenance law. The Court dismissed a petition filed by Gokul Yashwant Gopnarayan, who had challenged the grant of ₹4,000 per month to his wife Sangeeta Gokul Gopnarayan under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The petitioner, a retired serviceman from Akola, argued that his marriage with Sangeeta was void since she allegedly produced a forged death certificate of her first husband. But the Court wasn't convinced.
Background
The couple married in June 2008, both having lost their first spouses. Within a month, as per Sangeeta's version, the relationship soured. She alleged that Gokul and his son began harassing her, beating her, and demanding ₹30,000. Unable to bear the cruelty, she returned to her parents’ home and later approached the Magistrate at Murtizapur under Section 125 CrPC, seeking ₹5,000 as monthly maintenance.
The Magistrate granted ₹4,000, observing that she had no independent income and the husband had sufficient means. Gokul appealed before the Sessions Court, which upheld the order in 2018. The husband then approached the High Court, alleging grave injustice.
Petitioner's Argument
Gokul's lawyer, Mr. R.D. Dhande, claimed that Sangeeta's marriage was void ab initio under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, since her earlier husband, Harish Shinde, was still alive. He alleged that Sangeeta forged a death certificate to show Harish as deceased, thereby misleading him into marriage.
"The certificate was fake, and once a first marriage exists, the second automatically becomes void," he argued. He cited a string of Supreme Court judgments, including Yamunabai Adhav v. Anantrao Adhav and Savitaben Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, to contend that a woman in a void marriage cannot claim maintenance.
He added that he had initiated two criminal cases against Sangeeta for forgery and cheating, both still pending before local courts.
Respondent's Stand
Appearing for Sangeeta, Advocate A.B. Mirza dismissed the forgery allegations as a "deliberate ploy to evade responsibility." He pointed out that despite several cases filed since 2010, the husband had not secured any findings proving forgery or that the first husband was alive.
"The petitioner's aim is not truth but harassment," Mirza told the bench. He argued that under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof lay squarely on Gokul to establish that Harish was alive or that the death certificate was fake.
Court's Observations
Justice Nerlikar examined the entire record, including the marriage register, witness statements, and the alleged death certificate. He noted that even if the certificate turned out to be forged, the husband had produced no credible proof showing that Sangeeta’s first marriage was still subsisting.
"The petitioner has utterly failed to bring on record that the earlier marriage is still in existence. Merely saying that the death certificate is forged would not lead to a conclusion that the first husband is alive," the Court observed.
Referring to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Smt. N. Usha Rani v. Moodudula Srinivas (2025), the bench emphasized the evolving understanding of "wife" under Section 125 CrPC. The Supreme Court had held that even a second wife could claim maintenance if she was deceived into a marriage or left destitute.
Justice Nerlikar echoed that sentiment:
"Section 125 of the CrPC is a measure of social justice... Courts must interpret it to advance the cause of women and children, not defeat it."
He further remarked that maintenance laws were not about legal technicalities but about ensuring that no woman is left destitute after being abandoned.
Decision
In a firm conclusion, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Magistrate and Sessions Court. It declared that Sangeeta was indeed entitled to maintenance, dismissing Gokul’s writ petition in its entirety.
"Considering the above facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the petition," the judge pronounced while discharging the rule.
With that, the High Court affirmed that social justice under Section 125 CrPC must prevail over hyper-technical disputes about marital validity - especially when a woman's right to basic sustenance is at stake.
Case Title: Gokul Yashwant Gopnarayan vs. Sangeeta Gokul Gopnarayan
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 942 of 2018
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. D. Dhande
Counsel for Respondent : Mr. A. B. Mirza
Date of Judgment Reserved: 30 September 2025
Date of Judgment Pronounced: 7 October 2025