Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma
Introduction:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman seeking maintenance from her second husband, despite her first marriage not being legally dissolved. The Court emphasized that a formal decree of dissolution is not mandatory for a woman to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of BNSS,2023) if the parties are de facto separated.
- Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Provides for maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself, emphasizing the legal and moral duty of the husband.
- Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (if applicable): Relates to the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent (relevant to separation agreements).
Facts:
The appellant, a woman, married her second husband while still legally married to her first husband. She and her first husband were living separately, having mutually agreed to part ways, and she had a Memorandum of Understanding documenting the separation. She sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from her second husband, who opposed the claim, arguing that she could not be considered his wife due to her first marriage still being legally valid.
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog].
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Issues:
- Whether a woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from her second husband when her first marriage is legally subsisting.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The appellant argued that Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be interpreted broadly to include women in void marriages. She contended that her second husband knew of her first marriage and that they had been living separately for a considerable time. She also provided evidence of her separation from the first husband and that she was not receiving any maintenance from him.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The second husband argued that since the appellant’s first marriage was not legally dissolved, she could not be considered his wife. He contended that the marriage was void due to the subsistence of the first marriage.
Court's Analysis:
The Court noted that Section 125 Cr.P.C. aims to provide financial security to women and emphasized that the right to maintenance is a legal and moral duty of the husband, not a mere benefit. The Court observed that the second husband was fully aware of the appellant's first marriage and had entered into a second marriage with her knowingly. The absence of a formal divorce did not prevent the woman from seeking maintenance, especially since she had been separated from her first husband and was not receiving any support from him.
Conclusion:
The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, restoring the maintenance award granted by the Family Court. It clarified that the lack of a formal divorce from the first marriage does not bar the woman from claiming maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The judgment underscores the broad interpretation of Section 125 in line with its social welfare objectives.
