Supreme Court Ruling: Second Husband Must Provide Maintenance Despite Woman’s First Marriage Not Being Legally Dissolved

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has decided that a woman can seek maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), even if her first marriage has not been legally dissolved. This judgment comes as a relief for women in similar situations, emphasizing the social welfare objective of Section 125, which ensures the welfare and financial support of women, especially homemakers. The case at hand involved a woman who, despite being separated from her first husband and married to a second, was denied maintenance by the Telangana High Court, which cited the lack of a legal divorce from the first marriage. The Supreme Court has now overturned this decision.

Case Overview

• Parties Involved:
  • Appellant: A woman (Appellant No.1), who had been married to her first husband but separated from him, later remarried and sought maintenance from her second husband (Respondent).
  • Respondent: The second husband (Respondent), who was fully aware of the Appellant's first marriage.
• Background:
  • The Appellant No.1 had married the Respondent (Second Husband) despite not legally dissolving her first marriage. The couple lived together, had a child, and later separated due to marital disputes. The woman then sought maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
  • Initially, the Family Court had granted her maintenance. However, the Telangana High Court set aside this ruling, stating that since the first marriage was not legally dissolved, the Appellant's second marriage was void, and thus, she could not claim maintenance from her second husband.

Issue Before the Court

The core question before the Supreme Court was whether a woman, whose first marriage is still legally subsisting, can claim maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C..

Court's Observations and Findings

• Interpretation of ‘Wife’ under Section 125 Cr.P.C.: The Court highlighted that the term "wife" under Section 125 should be broadly interpreted. It noted that while the first marriage had not been legally dissolved, the woman had been living separately from her first husband for a significant period. The Court emphasized that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was meant to provide support to women, especially those who might face financial vulnerability, irrespective of legal technicalities.
• Key Findings:
  • The Respondent-Second Husband was fully aware of the Appellant’s first marriage when he married her. Therefore, he could not use the absence of a legal divorce as an excuse to deny her maintenance.
  • The Appellant No. 1 presented an MoU of Separation with her first husband. While this document was not a formal decree of divorce, it showed that both parties had mutually agreed to live separately, and the Appellant was not deriving any maintenance from her first husband.
  • The Court emphasized the financial vulnerability of homemakers and reiterated that the right to maintenance under Section 125 is a legal and moral duty of the husband, not just a benefit for the wife.
  • The judgment made it clear that the absence of a formal divorce should not be a bar for a woman seeking maintenance from a second husband. The second husband had entered into the relationship knowingly, and the absence of a legal dissolution of the first marriage did not invalidate the second marriage in this context.

Case Title: SMT. N. USHA RANI AND ANR. VERSUS MOODUDULA SRINIVAS

Attachment: