Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court

"Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice especially enacted with the objective to protect women from vagrancy and/ or destitution and hence, as victims of the social environment, their rights cannot be defeated by strict construction of beneficial provisions." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the term 'wife' under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) must be construed liberally to achieve its social-welfare objectives.

A bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that maintenance cannot be denied to a woman merely because a formal decree of divorce was not obtained from her first husband, especially when the parties cohabited as husband and wife and the second husband was aware of the prior circumstances.

The petitioner husband challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay ₹3,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent wife. The parties were married in 2009, but the relationship soured shortly after, leading the wife to seek maintenance due to a lack of means to sustain herself. The husband contended that the marriage was void as the respondent had not obtained a legal divorce from her first husband, thus disqualifying her from being a "legally wedded wife" under Section 125 CrPC.

The primary question before the court was whether a woman could be considered a 'wife' for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in the absence of a formal divorce from a previous marriage. The court was also called upon to determine if the beneficial nature of maintenance laws allows for a relaxed interpretation of the term 'wife' to prevent destitution.

Section 125 CrPC Is A Tool For Social Justice

The Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is not a penal provision but a tool for social justice designed to protect women and children from vagrancy. Justice Banerjee noted that as victims of their social environment, the rights of dependent women should not be hampered by technicalities or a rigid interpretation of statutes. The bench reiterated that the provision aims to provide a speedy remedy for food, clothing, and shelter.

Liberal Interpretation Of The Term 'Wife'

"The term ‘wife’ under Section 125 CrPC does not warrant strict construction, being a beneficial measure to secure the rights of a dependant woman and for her financial and social protection," the Court observed. It held that where a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife, a strong presumption of a valid marriage arises. The bench relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwana and Badshah v. Sou Urmila Badshah Godse to support this liberal view.

Presumption Of Death Of The First Husband

The Court took note of the respondent’s submission that she had only lived with her first husband for one month, after which he went missing for 12 years. The Family Court had rightly concluded that there was a presumption of his death. Furthermore, the petitioner had failed to lead any evidence to prove that he was unaware of the respondent’s previous history at the time of their marriage.

"Where the marriage of the parties and their cohabitation as husband and wife were admitted, the respondent was a ‘wife’ within the meaning of Section 125 CrPC."

Limited Scope Of Revisional Jurisdiction

Addressing the scope of a revision petition under Section 401 CrPC, the Court stated that it cannot re-evaluate evidence to arrive at fresh findings unless there is a patent illegality or perversity in the lower court's order. The bench found that the Family Court had provided cogent reasoning regarding territorial jurisdiction and the quantum of maintenance, which the petitioner failed to effectively rebut with evidence during the original trial.

Husband's Knowledge Of Prior Marriage Is Crucial

The Court highlighted that the petitioner could not escape his liability to pay maintenance by raising a technical plea regarding the validity of the marriage at a later stage. Citing the recent precedent in N. Usha Rani & Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas, the Court upheld the right of a wife to claim maintenance from a second marriage even if no formal divorce was passed in the first, provided the husband could not prove ignorance of the prior marriage.

The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to point out any perversity or arbitrariness in the Family Court's order dated February 27, 2018. Consequently, the High Court refused to interfere with the direction to pay ₹3,000 per month as maintenance and ₹11,000 as litigation expenses. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the respondent's right to financial support.

The ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to prioritizing the substantive goal of preventing female destitution over the strict, literal interpretation of matrimonial status in maintenance proceedings. By upholding the liberal definition of 'wife', the Delhi High Court has ensured that the protective umbrella of Section 125 CrPC remains accessible to women in complex social and marital situations.

Date of Decision: May 06, 2026