Wife entitled to claim Maintenance from her second husband while first marriage is subsisting.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme
Court held that woman is entitled to claim maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.
from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally
subsisting.
 |
| Wife entitled to claim Maintenance from second husband while first marriage is subsisting. |
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted maintenance to the wife while her first marriage was subsisting. The Supreme Court also held that the woman was living separately without a legal divorce from her first husband and was not taking any maintenance from her husband at the time of her second marriage. The Second husband was aware of these facts. Thus, the woman is entitled to her second husband to claim maintenance under section 125 CrPC, while her first marriage is legally subsisting.
Brief Facts
The brief fact of the case is that appellant
got marriage in 1991 during the marriage a male child was born in 2000. The
couple lived together until a dispute arose between them. After their return
from the United States of America in 2005, they stated living separately.
Eventually in 2005, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed between
the couple, thereby dissolving their marriage. In the meantime, appellant no.1
got acquainted with her neighbour, the respondent, and the couple got married
on 2005.
Thereafter the respondent filed a
petition for divorce in 2005 under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1956
(HMA) read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. This prayer was
allowed by the family Court vide order 01.02.2006 and the marriage between the
appellant no.1 and the respondent was dissolved (declared null and void).
In 2006 appellant no.1 remarried the
respondent. The couple lived together and differences between the couple and
the appellant no.1 filed a complaint against the respondent and his family
members for offence under section 498A, 406,506,420 of the Indian Penal Code
and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The appellant then preferred an
application for maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court,
the court ordered maintenance of Rs. 3500 per month to the appellant no.1 and
Rs. 5000 per month to appellant no.2.
Aggrieved by the order of the court,
the respondent filed a criminal revision petition against the maintenance
order; the High Court upheld the maintenance order to the daughter i.e.
appellant no.2 but set aside the maintenance order granted to the appellant
no.1. The Court held that appellant no. 1 cannot be treated as the legal wife
of the respondent as her first marriage was not dissolved by the legal decree.
Legal Issues
The question that arose before the
Court was whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under section 125
CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly still valid.
Contention of Appellant
The learned Counsel for the appellants
contented that since the appellant no.1 and the respondent are living as a de
facto married couple and bringing up a child together, the benefit of
maintenance should be extended to appellant no.1 also. Reliance is placed on judgment passed
in Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga vs. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga, (2005)
2 SCC 33 wherein a Division Bench of this Court had upheld the award of
maintenance to a wife from her second husband under section 25 of HMA while her
first marriage was still subsisting.
Contention of the Respondent
On the other hand, the learned counsel
for the respondent opposed the grant of maintenance on the ground that
appellant no.1 cannot be treated as a “wife” under section 125 of the CrPC.
Learned counsel further argued that, since appellant no.1 is legally married to
her first husband, she cannot be treated as the wife of the respondent and
cannot claim maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court heard the arguments
of both the counsel and said that the family court made a factual finding that
appellant no.1 has married the respondent and that finding has not been
disputed by the respondent. Instead, the respondent seeks to defeat the right
to maintenance by claiming that her marriage to the appellant no.1 is void ab
intio as her first marriage is still subsisting.
The Bench observed that when the
social justice objective of maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC is
considered against the special facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot
in good conscience, deny maintenance to appellant no.1. It is settled law that
social welfare provisions must be subjected to a broad and beneficial
interpretation and this understanding has been extended to maintenance since
Ramesh Chandra (supra).
The Court further observed that
recently, Badshash vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and others, (2014) 1 SCC 188, this Court granted the maintenance to a
second wife who was kept in the dark about her husband’s first marriage and a
recent landmark referred a judgment in the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad vs.
State of Telangana and another (2024) SCC.
The Court further held that it must be
kept in the mind that the right to maintenance under section 125 CrPC is not a
benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband.
Therefore woman is entitled to claim maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. from
her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting.
Conclusion
In such circumstances, keeping in view
the social justice objective of maintenance under section 125 CrPC, it would
not be justified to deny maintenance to wife from her second,
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and granted maintenance award to the wife.
Citation: - 2025(2) Law Herald (SC)
897
Read More:
.png)
Post a Comment