In which of the following cases were victims/wives of bigamous marriages allowed to get maintenance under Section 125 (Section 144 BNSS) of the Criminal Procedure Code?

Correct option is C

In the case of Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse (2013), the Supreme Court of India ruled that a woman who was misled into a bigamous marriage by the husband (who concealed his existing marriage) is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Court emphasized that the provision under Section 125 is a measure of social justice intended to protect women and children from destitution and vagrancy. Therefore, even if technically the marriage is void, a woman who had no knowledge of the prior subsisting marriage would still be entitled to maintenance.

Information Booster:
Section 125 CrPC provides a quick remedy for maintenance irrespective of personal laws and aims at preventing destitution.
The Court observed that a "social purpose" must override technical interpretations of marriage validity under Section 125.

Additional Information:

In contrast, Shayara Bano v. Union of India dealt with the constitutionality of triple talaq.
Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar relates to restitution of conjugal rights under matrimonial law.
Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar was about restitution of conjugal rights and constitutional validity under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.