Orissa High Court
Susmita Prasad vs Srinivas Prasad on 9 July, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.176 of 2022
Susmita Prasad .... Petitioner
Mr. J.S. Samal, Advocate
on behalf of
Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Srinivas Prasad .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Order ORDER
No. 09.07.2026
(Hybrid Mode)
06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel made his submissions in
response to the finding of the learned Judge, Family
Court, Baripada at Mayurbhanj at Paragraph-8, "Even
if, it is presumed for the sake of argument that the
petitioner has married the OP, the marriage cannot be
said to a legally valid marriage as the first wife of the
wife was alive and hence the marriage between the
petitioner and the OP during the lifetime of the first wife
of the OP is not lawful in the eye of law. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the petitioner is the legally married
wife of the OP and their marriage is void in the eye of
law. As per the decision reported in October 18, 2013
in Crl. Misc. petition No.19530/2013 in the matter of
Page 1 of 4
Badshah Vrs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse and
another".
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner can be the legally married wife.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to
the earlier orders dated 31.03.2026 and 29.04.2026
and submits that he has gone through the pleadings of
the parties, the evidences laid, examination-in-chief
and cross-examination before the learned Judge,
Family Court.
On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner
takes the Court through judgment dated 18.06.2022
paragraphs-6,7 and 8.
3. The pleadings of the petitioner as well as the
evidences led concededly goes to show that she was
aware of the first marriage of the opposite party and
she has stated she married the opposite party during
subsistence of the valid marriage. She has further
stated that she had taken 'consent' of the first wife.
This shows the petitioner being aware of the marital
status of the opposite party
4. The learned Family Court has relied on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Badshah vrs.
Urmila Badshah Godse; (2014) 1 SCC 188. In
Badshah (supra) the following has been laid down:
"13.2. Secondly, as already discussed
above, when the marriage between Respondent
1 and the petitioner was solemnised, the
petitioner had kept Respondent 1 in dark about
Page 2 of 4
his first marriage. A false representation was
given to Respondent 1 that he was single and
was competent to enter into marital tie with
Respondent 1. In such circumstances, can the
petitioner be allowed to take advantage of his
own wrong and turn around to say that the
respondents are not entitled to maintenance by
filing the petition under Section 125 CrPC as
Respondent 1 is not “legally wedded wife” of
the petitioner? Our answer is in the negative.
We are of the view that at least for the purpose
of Section 125 CrPC, Respondent 1 would be
treated as the wife of the petitioner, going by
the spirit of the two judgments we have
reproduced above. For this reason, we are of
the opinion that the judgments of this Court in
Adhav [Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v.
Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC
530: 1988 SCC (Cri) 182] and Savitaben
[Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of
Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri)
787] cases would apply only in those
circumstances where a woman married a man
with full knowledge of the first subsisting
marriage. In such cases, she should know that
second marriage with such a person is
impermissible and there is an embargo under
the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore she has
to suffer the consequences thereof. The said
judgment would not apply to those cases
where a man marries a second time by keeping
that lady in dark about the first surviving
marriage. That is the only way two sets of
judgments can be reconciled and harmonised.
13.3. Thirdly, in such cases, purposive
interpretation needs to be given to the
provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing
with the application of a destitute wife or
hapless children or parents under this
provision, the Court is dealing with the
marginalised sections of the society. The
purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is
the constitutional vision, enshrined in the
Preamble of the Constitution of India. The
Page 3 of 4
Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly
signals that we have chosen the democratic
path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of
securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty,
equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights
achieving their social justice. Therefore, it
becomes the bounden duty of the courts to
advance the cause of the social justice. While
giving interpretation to a particular provision,
the court is supposed to bridge the gap
between the law and society.”
5. Applying the above principles as elaborated in
Badshah (supra) it has to be held that the learned
Family Court has correctly held that the marital status
of the opposite party: not being single, he was married
which was within the knowledge of the petitioner.
6. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks further time to advance arguments.
7. To grant further opportunity the matter shall be
listed for ‘Fresh Admission’ in the week commencing
3rd August, 2026.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
amit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Jul-2026 15:33:21
Page 4 of 4
