Supreme Court: Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Allowed from Second Husband Despite First Marriage 

Whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting?.

In a landmark judgment dated January 30, 2025, passed by the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case of Smt. N. Usha Rani & Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas (SLP (Crl.) No. 7660 of 2017), ruled that a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) from her second husband, even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved.

Background of The case:

Smt. N. Usha Rani married Nomula Srinivas on August 30, 1999, and they had a son, Sai Ganesh, born on August 15, 2000. After returning from the United States in February 2005, marital discord led to their separation. On November 25, 2005, they executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to formalize their separation without obtaining a formal divorce decree from the competent Court of Law. Shortly thereafter, on November 27, 2005, Usha Rani married her neighbor, Moodudula Srinivas, who was aware of her prior marriage.

Subsequently, Moodudula Srinivas sought annulment of their marriage solemnized on 27.11.2005 under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that their marriage is null and void in view of the fact that the first marriage of Smt. Usha Rani was not legally dissolved by the competent Court of law. The Family Court declared their marriage null and void on February 1, 2006. Despite this, again the couple remarried on February 14, 2006, and subsequently, they were blessed with a daughter, Venkata Harshini, on January 28, 2008. Later, some disputes and differences arose between them, leading Usha Rani to file for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and other Criminal cases. In the maintenance case, the Family Court awarded her Rs. 3,500 per month and Rs. 5,000 per month for their daughter. ​

Moodudula Srinivas challenged this decision in the High Court, which upheld the maintenance for the daughter but set aside the maintenance for Usha Rani, holding that her first marriage was still legally subsisting, and thus, she could not be considered as the legal wife of the respondent.

Substantial Question of Law which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court.

Whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance u/s. 125 Cr.P.C from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting.

Observation of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's ruling, emphasizing that the right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a legal and moral obligation of the husband, designed to prevent destitution. The Court noted that Usha Rani had effectively separated from her first husband and was not receiving any financial support from him. ​

The bench highlighted that Moodudula Srinivas was fully aware of Usha Rani's prior marriage before entering into matrimony with her and could not later evade responsibility by citing the void status of their marriage. The Court referred to precedents such as Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, which advocate for a broad interpretation of maintenance laws to prevent women from being left destitute. ​

Furthermore, the Court also cited Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, underscoring the financial vulnerability of homemakers in India and reinforcing that maintenance is essential for the financial security of women without independent income.

PROPOSITION:

This judgment broadens the interpretation of "wife" under Section 125 Cr.P.C, recognizing the realities of marital relationships and the necessity of providing financial support to women who have separated from their husbands, even if a formal divorce decree is absent. It underscores the Court's commitment to a purposive and socially oriented interpretation of maintenance laws to prevent destitution and ensure social justice.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the Supreme Court restored the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, asserting that a beneficial and expansive interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C is necessary to protect women's rights and prevent destitution. This judgment sets a significant precedent, affirming that even in cases of void marriages; women are entitled to maintenance if they have separated from their first husband and lack financial support. ​