Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Second Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC If De Facto Separation from First Marriage Proven: Supreme Court

15 March 2025 4:02 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Supreme Court has ruled that a woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC from her second husband, even if her first marriage is not legally dissolved, provided that she is de facto separated and not deriving benefits from her first husband.

In Smt. N. Usha Rani & Anr. vs. Moodududla Srinivas, the Court overturned a High Court ruling that denied maintenance to the appellant, citing her subsisting first marriage. The Court reasoned that the respondent-husband was fully aware of the appellant’s previous marital status when he married her not once, but twice. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, delivering the judgment, emphasized that “maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband.”

The case revolved around a woman whose first marriage was dissolved through a Memorandum of Understanding rather than a formal legal decree. She subsequently married the respondent and had a child with him, only for their relationship to deteriorate. When she sought maintenance, the High Court ruled against her, stating that she was not legally a “wife” under Section 125 CrPC.

However, the Supreme Court took a purposive approach, referencing Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga vs. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga (2005) 2 SCC 33 and Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141, which advocated an expansive interpretation of “wife” in cases of maintenance. “Men should not be allowed to benefit from legal loopholes by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking its duties and obligations,” the Court observed.

The judgment also referenced Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1686), stressing the importance of financial security for homemakers. The Court noted that in Indian society, “a wife who does not have an independent source of finance is dependent on her husband not only emotionally but also financially.”

By restoring the Family Court’s decision to grant maintenance, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the intent of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, rather than rigidly adhere to legal technicalities.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2025
 

Latest Legal News