Apex Court Grants Maintenance To A Wife Even Though Her First Marriage Was Subsisting
The 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 legally subsisting.
The Supreme Court in a recent Judgment granted maintenance to a wife even though her first marriage was subsisting.
The Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal preferred by a wife against the Order of the Telangana High Court.
The short question before the Court was whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “Most recently, in Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another (2014) 1 SCC 188, this Court granted maintenance to a second wife who was kept in the dark about her husband’s first subsisting marriage.”
The Bench also referred to the Judgment in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another (1999) in which the Supreme Court granted maintenance where proof of marriage was inconclusive and the Court noted that the standard of proof of marriage while claiming maintenance is not as strict as is required in a trial for offence under Section 494 IPC.
AOR Shekhar Kumar represented the Appellants while AOR D. Mahesh Babu represented the Respondent.
Case Background
The Appellant got married in 1999 and during the period of the wedlock, she gave birth to a male child in 2000. The couple lived together until disputes arose between them and following their return from the United States of America (USA) in 2005, they began living separately. Eventually, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed between the couple, dissolving their marriage. Meanwhile, the Appellant got acquainted with her neighbour, the Respondent, and the couple got married. The Respondent then preferred a Petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (HMA) read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking dissolution of marriage. The prayer was allowed by the Family Court, and the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was declared null and void. In 2006, the Appellant remarried the Respondent and this second marriage was registered and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Registrar of Marriage.
The couple was blessed with a daughter in 2008. However, differences arose between the couple and the Appellant preferred a Complaint against the Respondent and his family members for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 506, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act). The Appellant then preferred an Application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court and the Court awarded Rs. 3,500/- per month to the Appellant No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the Appellant No. 2. Aggrieved, Respondent preferred a Criminal Revision Petition against the award of maintenance and the High Court upheld the award of maintenance to the daughter i.e., Appellant No. 2 but set aside the award of maintenance to the Appellant No. 1. The Court held that the Appellant No. 1 could not be considered the legal wife of the Respondent as her first marriage was not dissolved through a legal decree. Challenging this, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “The present case does not concern a live-in relationship. The Family Court made a factual finding that Appellant No. 1 married the Respondent and that finding is not disputed by the Respondent. Instead, the Respondent seeks to defeat the right to maintenance by claiming that his marriage to Appellant No. 1 is void ab initio as her first marriage is still subsisting.”
The Court referred to the landmark Judgment in the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana and Another (2024) in which the Apex Court remarked that some husbands are not conscious of the fact that the wife who has no independent source of finance is dependent on them not only emotionally but also financially.
It was further observed in the aforesaid Judgment that the question raised about a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed must be interpreted in a broad and expansive way, so as to encompass not only a subsisting domestic relationship in praesenti but also a past domestic relationship.
“It is settled law that social welfare provisions must be subjected to an expansive and beneficial construction and this understanding has been extended to maintenance since Ramesh Chander (supra). An alternate interpretation would not only explicitly defeat the purpose of the provision by permitting vagrancy and destitution, but would also give legal sanction to the actions of the Respondent in knowingly entering into a marriage with Appellant No.1, availing its privileges but escaping its consequent duties and obligations”, the Court noted.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and restored the maintenance award granted by the Family Court.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 129)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Shekhar Kumar, Advocates A.K. Thakur, Santosh, Rishi Raj, Sujeet Kumar, Ningthem Oinam, and Amrita Srivastava.
Respondent: AOR D. Mahesh Babu
