Right To Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC Not A Benefit Received By Wife But A Legal & Moral Duty Owed By Husband: SC
The Supreme Court allowed a Criminal Appeal preferred by a wife against the Order of the Telangana High Court.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband.
The Court emphasised thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred by a wife against the Order of the Telangana High Court.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “We are aware that this Court has previously denied maintenance in cases of subsisting marriages (See Yamunabai (supra) and Bakulabai (supra)). However, a plea of separation from the first marriage was not made in those cases and hence, they are factually distinguishable. 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 Bench also referred to the recent landmark Judgment in the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana and Another (2024).
AOR Shekhar Kumar represented the Appellants while AOR D. Mahesh Babu represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
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, noted, “The short question before us is whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting. … 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 said that the Respondent knowingly entered into a marriage with the Appellant not once, but twice and the Appellant placed before the Court an MoU of separation with her first husband. It added that, while this is not a legal decree of divorce, it also emerges from this document and other evidence that the parties have dissolved their ties, they have been living separately, and the Appellant is not deriving maintenance from her first husband.
“Therefore, barring the absence of a legal decree, Appellant No. 1 is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that marriage”, it further said.
The Court was of the opinion that when the social justice objective of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is considered against the particular facts and circumstances of the case, the Court cannot, in good conscience, deny maintenance to the Appellant.
“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”, it also noted.
The Court added that the only conceivable mischief that could arise in permitting a beneficial interpretation is that the Appellant could claim dual maintenance; however, that is not the case under the present facts.
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