Shreya Gupta
On January 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from her second husband, even when her first marriage was not legally dissolved in the case of Smt. N. Usha Rani and Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas. The Court clarified that a formal decree of dissolution of marriage is not mandatory, and if the woman and her first husband mutually agreed to separate, the absence of a legal divorce formality does not prevent her from seeking maintenance from her second husband.
The bench comprised of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma who granted relief to the woman by overturning the Telangana High Court’s order, which had denied her maintenance on the grounds that her first marriage was still legally existing.
The Court emphasized that the ‘Right to Maintenance’ under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not a mere benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband, and thus, the provision should be interpreted broadly in line with its social welfare objective.
In this case, the Appellant married the Respondent (her second husband) despite not obtaining a formal divorce from her first husband. The Respondent was aware of her first marriage, and the couple lived together, had a child, and later separated due to matrimonial disputes. The Appellant sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was originally granted by the Family Court but later set aside by the High Court, reasoning that her second marriage was void due to the subsistence of her first marriage.
The second husband opposed the plea, arguing that since the Appellant was legally married to her first husband, she could not be considered his wife. However, the Appellant contended that the term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be broadly interpreted to include women in void marriages, especially in cases where the second husband knew about the first marriage and the woman had already separated from her first husband.
The Supreme Court, setting aside the High Court’s ruling, observed that Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not prohibit a wife from claiming maintenance from her second husband even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved. Since the Respondent was aware of her first marriage when he married her twice, he could not use the lack of a legal divorce as an excuse to deny maintenance.
The Court further noted that the Respondent had knowingly entered into marriage with the appellant despite full knowledge of her prior marriage. Additionally, the Appellant presented a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of separation with her first husband, which, although not a legal divorce decree, established that they had dissolved their ties, lived separately, and that she was not receiving maintenance from him. Therefore, despite the absence of a legal decree, she was de facto separated from her first husband and had no entitlements from that marriage.
The Court referred to the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana and Another (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1686, highlighting the financial vulnerability of homemakers in India, and reiterated that maintenance is a legal and moral duty of the husband rather than a mere benefit to the wife. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the maintenance award granted by the Family Court.
Case Title: Smt. N. Usha Rani and Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 7660 of 2017
Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma