The Supreme Court case involved a woman, Wassan Singh, claiming maintenance from Dipo under Section 125 of the CrPC, alleging they were married. Dipo claimed to be married to Lakshmi instead. The Court found errors in not issuing notice to Lakshmi. It remanded the case to determine if Dipo was married to Lakshmi or lived with Wassan in a marriage-like relationship for a long period. The Family Court was ordered to issue notice to Lakshmi, hear her evidence, and give a fresh ruling.

1. SMT. DIPO Vs. WASSAN SINGH & OTHERS
By- Alok Narayan PAthak

2. FACTS
• The appellant was alleged to have been married in accordance with Hindu rites with one Lakshmi dated 25-06-1980. The wedlock gave birth to a son. And the petitioner-appellant
was working as teacher in Thevanga Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore.
• The respondent filed a petition U/S 125 CrPC in the year 2001 at the Family High Court at Coimbatore where it was alleged that she was married to the appellant on 14-09-1986,
wherefrom both lived together in her father’s house for two to three years. In the petition it was alleged that after two or three year the appellant left the house of the respondent’ father
and began to reside at his native place but paid occasional visit to respondent house.
• So it was claimed that the appellant had deserted the respondent in 1986. Also that the respondent did not had any kind of livelihood whereas the appellant was Secondary Grade
Teacher with salary of ₹10,000 pm. Therefore under Section 125 CrPC it was prayed that the appellant be directed to pay ₹500 pm as maintenance to the respondent.
• It was also alleged by the respondent against the appellant that he was married to one Lakshmi on 25-06-1980, a ration card, voter’s identity card, transfer certificate of the son borne
to that marriage, discharge certificate of Lakshmi from hospital, photographs of the marriage etc., was produced before the Court as a testimony of the allegation.
• The Family Court held that the appellant had been married to the respondent and not to one Lakshmi and the same was upheld by the High Court as well.
• The special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court against the order of the judgment of the Madras High Court.

3. ISSUES
• Whether the appellant was married to the respondent or not.
• What is the meaning of the expression `a relationship in the nature of marriage’?

4. OBITER DICTA
• The whole objective of Section 125 CrPC is to ward off a suffering wife from vagrancy and destitution. It is a
means to accord speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife. Section 125 of
CrPC is applicable upon woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her
husband and has not remarried. Thus a woman without marital status is within the ambit of the definition of term
‘wife’. But a marriage with a second wife is void and the wife therefore is not entitled to maintenance provision.
• No matter how grave is the plight of an unfortunate woman who unwittingly enters into marriage with a
married man, cannot be included within the ambit of remedy U/S 125 CrPC. Such gap in law can only be filled
by the Legislature through an amendment.

5. JUDGEMENT
• The Apex Court’s bench comprising of Markandey Katju, T. S. Thakur JJ, held the following:
• Non issuance of the notice to Lakshmi was an error upon which the High Court and the Family Court decided that
appellant was not married to Lakshmi. Therefore the impugned order of lower court was set aside.
• The Family Court was order to issue notice to Lakshmi and hear her and then give a fresh finding in accordance with
law.
• Only upon such finding can the Court decide that whether appellant is married to the respondent or not.
• Also that the Family Court did not find out whether the appellant and the respondent had lived together for a
reasonably long period of time in a relationship which was in the nature of marriage.
• Hence the matter was remanded to the Family Court Judge to adjudicate afresh in accordance with the observation
made in this case. Appeal was allowed.

6. CONCLUSION
• The days of restricted norms have passed away, today is the day when living together without marriage is a
new norm. Marriage is not only sacred but comes with various social obligation to be performed to which
some couples might be reluctant. But it is to be borne in mind that this case has laid dawn certain requirement
to be fulfilled in order to be qualified as a relationship which is in the nature of marriage. Such a qualification
is essential in order to deliver justice to those women who lived with the man for a considerable period of
time, was later deserted and tagged as an unfortunate women.