A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ruled that a woman can claim maintenance from her second husband even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved. 

The Court held that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is a social justice provision meant to protect women from destitution and should be interpreted in a broad, purposive manner. The ruling restores maintenance granted by the Family Court but overturned by the High Court on the grounds that the marriage was legally void.

Appellant No.1 had married the Respondent (Second Husband) despite not obtaining a formal divorce from her first husband. The Respondent was aware of the Appellant No.1 first marriage. The couple lived together, had a child, and later separated due to matrimonial disputes. Appellant No.1 then sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was initially granted by the Family Court but later set aside by the High Court because her marriage was void due to subsistence of the first marriage as it was not legally dissolved.

The Respondent-Second Husband opposed Appellant No.1’s plea for maintenance contending that she can’t be considered as Wife of Respondent because she had a legally subsisting marriage with her first husband.

The Appellant No.1-Wife argued that the term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be interpreted broadly to include women in void marriages, especially when the second husband knew of the first marriage and the wife had separated from her first husband.

Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the judgment authored by Justice Sharma observed that there’s no bar under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the wife to claim maintenance from her second husband even though her first marriage was not legally dissolved.

Since, the Respondent-Second Husband was aware of her first marriage when he married and re-married her, therefore, he can’t take an excuse to deny her maintenance just because her first marriage was not legally dissolved, the court said.

“Two other pertinent facts must be considered: firstly, it is not the case of the Respondent that the truth was concealed from him. In fact, the Family Court makes a specific finding that Respondent was fully aware of the first marriage of the Appellant No. 1. Therefore, Respondent knowingly entered into a marriage with Appellant No. 1 not once, but twice. Secondly, Appellant No. 1 places before this Court an MoU of separation with her first husband. 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 Appellant No. 1 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.”, the court observed.

The Court cited the recent case of Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana and Another emphasizing the financial vulnerability of homemakers in India to reiterate that the right to maintenance is not merely a benefit for the wife but a legal and moral duty of the husband.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the maintenance award granted by the Family Court was restored.

Cases : Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and others | SLP(C) 25250-25251/2024, Juli CJ v State of Kerala and others | SLP(C) No.27320-27321/2024, Parvathi T v State of Kerala and others | Diary No. 55412-2024