Wife, Separated From 1st Husband, Can Claim Maintenance From 2nd Husband Though 1st Marriage Not Legally Dissolved: Supreme Court

Post By 24law
February 9, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) from her second husband, even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved. The Court observed that the absence of a formal divorce decree does not bar a woman from seeking maintenance if she and her first husband have mutually separated and are no longer deriving any rights and entitlements from that marriage.

A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma ruled in favor of a woman whose plea for maintenance was earlier denied by the Telangana High Court on the ground that her marriage with the second husband was void due to the subsistence of her first marriage. Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court restored the maintenance award granted by the Family Court.

Observations of the Court

While delivering the judgment, the Court emphasized the social welfare objective of Section 125 CrPC, stating: "It must be borne in mind that the right to maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband." The Court referred to its earlier judgments and noted that the provision must be interpreted expansively to ensure that women are not left destitute due to technical legalities.

Brief Facts of the Case

The case arose from an appeal filed by the woman, Smt. N. Usha Rani, against the Telangana High Court’s decision. The key facts are as follows:

The appellant married Nomula Srinivas in 1999, and they had a son together. However, due to disputes, they began living separately in 2005 after returning from the United States. On November 25, 2005, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed between the appellant and her first husband, dissolving their relationship. Subsequently, on November 27, 2005, she married the respondent, Moodudula Srinivas (her second husband). However, the respondent later sought annulment of their marriage, and on February 1, 2006, the Family Court declared it null and void. The couple remarried on February 14, 2006, and the marriage was officially registered in September 2006. They had a daughter in 2008, but due to marital disputes, the appellant sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court awarded Rs. 3,500 per month to the appellant and Rs. 5,000 per month to their daughter. The Telangana High Court, however, set aside the maintenance for the appellant, ruling that she was not legally the wife of the respondent. Challenging this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issue

The primary question before the Court was: "Whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting."

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Court held that there is no absolute bar under Section 125 CrPC that prevents a woman from seeking maintenance in such circumstances. It observed that:

The respondent (second husband) was fully aware of the appellant’s first marriage when he married her.
The appellant had executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with her first husband, indicating that they had separated and were no longer deriving any rights from that marriage.
A strict interpretation of marriage validity should not defeat the social welfare purpose of Section 125 CrPC.
The Court distinguished the present case from earlier rulings where maintenance was denied due to a subsisting first marriage, noting that here, the first marriage had effectively ended in practice, though not through a formal decree.

Citing Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana and Another, the Court reiterated the importance of financial security for homemakers: "In Indian society, it is an established practice that once a daughter is married, she resides with her husband and/or his family unless due to exigency of career or such other reason she has to reside elsewhere. In the case of a woman who has an independent source of income, she may be financially endowed and may not be totally dependent on her husband and his family. But what is the position of a married woman who is often referred to as a ‘homemaker’ and who does not have an independent source of income, whatsoever, and is totally dependent for her financial resources on her husband and on his family?" The Court further emphasized that denying maintenance in such cases would allow men to enjoy the benefits of marriage while evading its obligations.

Precedents Considered

The Court referred to several landmark cases, including:

Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga (2005) – Granted maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act despite a subsisting first marriage.
Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) – Held that the term ‘wife’ under Section 125 CrPC should be interpreted broadly, even covering live-in relationships.
Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) – Granted maintenance to a second wife who was deceived into believing her marriage was valid.

Verdict

Restoring the maintenance granted by the Family Court, the Supreme Court held that depriving the appellant of maintenance "would explicitly defeat the purpose of Section 125 CrPC by permitting vagrancy and destitution." The Court recognized the reality of relationships where marriages, though void in law, involve a genuine domestic relationship and financial dependence. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, ensuring that the appellant received the necessary financial support despite the legal technicalities surrounding her marital status.