Supreme Court: Woman Can Claim Maintenance from Second Husband Despite Undissolved First Marriage

Supreme Court: Woman Can Claim Maintenance from Second Husband Despite Undissolved First Marriage
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has affirmed that a woman is entitled to maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), even if her first marriage remains legally valid. The bench, comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, emphasized that maintenance is not merely a privilege but a legal and moral obligation of the husband.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a woman challenging a High Court decision dated April 13, 2017, which had overturned her monthly maintenance award of Rs 5,000. The High Court had reasoned that she could not be recognized as the legal wife of her second husband since her first marriage had not been legally dissolved. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that denying maintenance under such circumstances would contradict the social justice intent of Section 125 CrPC.
The Supreme Court noted that the family court had established the fact that the appellant married the respondent, and this was not contested by him. The respondent’s argument focused on the invalidity of their marriage due to the appellant’s ongoing first marriage. However, the bench pointed out that the respondent was fully aware of the appellant’s marital status at the time of their marriage, having married her twice.
Additionally, the appellant presented a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) detailing her separation from her first husband, indicating that they were living apart and she was not receiving any maintenance from him. While the MoU does not constitute a legal divorce, it confirmed the de facto end of the first marriage, leading the court to rule in favor of the appellant.
The bench stated, “An alternate interpretation would defeat the purpose of the provision by permitting vagrancy and destitution and would give legal sanction to the respondent’s actions of escaping his duties and obligations.”
Background of the Case:
The appellant’s first marriage took place on August 30, 1999, in Hyderabad, resulting in the birth of a son in 2000. After returning from the USA in 2005, the couple faced disputes, leading to a Memorandum of Understanding on November 25, 2005, dissolving their marriage informally. Shortly afterward, the appellant married her neighbor, the respondent, on November 27, 2005.
Their marriage faced challenges, leading to a brief annulment in February 2006. However, the couple remarried on February 14, 2006, and officially registered their marriage in September 2006. They welcomed a daughter in January 2008, but disputes resurfaced, prompting the appellant to file complaints under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The woman and her daughter filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, and the family court awarded maintenance to both in 2012. However, the High Court later upheld the maintenance for the daughter but set aside the award for the appellant.
Legal Precedents Cited:
The Supreme Court referenced several previous rulings, including Vimala (K) Vs Veeraswamy (K) (1991), where maintenance was granted to a second wife, and Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999), which emphasized that the standard of proof for maintenance claims is less stringent than in criminal cases. The court also cited Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse (2014), where maintenance was awarded to a second wife unaware of her husband’s first marriage.
In conclusion, the court reiterated that social welfare laws should be interpreted broadly to prevent destitution and uphold justice. This ruling sets a significant precedent in maintenance cases, reinforcing the legal protection for women in complex marital situations.