The Delhi High Court recently rejected a plea by a man's second wife to add her as a party in a maintenance case initiated by his estranged first wife..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that allowing such a plea would unnecessarily expand the scope of the maintenance case and defeat the purpose of Section 125 (maintenance) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). "If such a plea were to be entertained, it would open the door for every person claiming to be dependent, upon a person from whom maintenance is sought, to seek impleadment in such proceedings, which would unnecessarily enlarge the scope of what are otherwise summary proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Such an approach would render the adjudication of the present revision petition unwieldy and defeat the very purpose of proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which are intended to be expeditious and limited in scope," the Court said. .The case concerned divorce and maintenance proceedings between a man and woman who had married in 2005. After relations soured, both husband and wife filed for divorce in 2022, accusing each other of cruelty. A family court allowed the husband's divorce plea in January 2024, finding force in his allegations of cruelty and desertion against his wife. In July the same year, the man married his second wife. Meanwhile, the first wife moved a plea seeking maintenance from the man for herself and their two children. .In April 2024, a family court ordered the man to pay maintenance for his two children. However, the court refused to order the payment of any maintenance to the first wife. The family court denied such maintenance payments to the first wife in view of the divorce ruling passed against her in January 2024, in which it was held that the wife had deserted her husband without any reason. The first wife challenged this before the High Court by filing a revision petition. She also filed an appeal against the family court ruling that allowed her husband's divorce plea, in which adverse findings were made against her. Following this appeal, the divorce ruling was stayed. .Meanwhile, the man's second wife filed an application to be added as a respondent to the first wife's revision petition in the maintenance case. The second wife reasoned that since she was also dependent on the man, she should be heard as well before a decision is made on how much maintenance he should pay his first wife. .The Court, however, held that since it is the first wife who initiated the maintenance proceedings, she is the dominus litis (master of the suit) and cannot be forced to litigate against a party from whom she has not claimed any relief."The dispute is essentially between the petitioner and the respondent, and the petitioner, being dominus litis, cannot be compelled to litigate against a person against whom no relief is claimed. The presence of the applicant (second wife) is, therefore, not required for the effective adjudication of the present case.".The Court further rejected the second wife's argument that her rights would be violated if she is not heard in the maintenance case. The Court noted that neither the second wife's independent rights nor her marital status was affected by the maintenance case. "No relief has been claimed against the applicant (second wife), nor is any determination being made regarding her marital status or her independent rights in this petition. At best, any impact on the applicant would be indirect or incidental, arising out of the financial obligations of the respondent. Such an incidental effect cannot be equated with a direct infringement of rights so as to attract the principles of natural justice or to confer a right of impleadment," the Court said. The Court added that even if the second wife is not a party to the maintenance case, her interests could still be protected."Even assuming that the applicant is financially dependent upon the respondent-husband, it always remains open to the respondent (husband) to place all such relevant facts before this Court," it said, before dismissing the second wife's impleadment application. .The revision petitioner (first wife) was represented by Advocates Meera Kaura Patel, Ritika Saini, Monika Chowdhary, and Shailesh Chandra Jha.
