Supreme Court Grants Maintenance to Wife Despite Her Subsisting First Marriage

Supreme Court, on the question of whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC from her second husband when her first marriage is legally subsisting, held in favour.

The case involved Smt. N. Usha Rani (Appellant No. 1) who married Nomula Srinivas, had a child, and later separated. She then married one Moodudula Srinivas (the Respondent). During her new marriage she gave birth to another child (Appellant No. 2), and thereafter she filed for maintenance against the Respondent after disputes cropped up him.

The Family Court had granted maintenance both to Smt. N. Usha Rani and her daughter; but the High Court set aside the award granted in favour of Smt. N. Usha Rani holding that she cannot be treated as the legal wife of the Respondent as her marriage with her first husband had not been legally dissolved.

The Supreme Court held that in view of the facts of the case and the social justice objective of Section 125 CrPC, refusal of maintenance to Appellant No. 1 would defeat the purpose of the provision. The court specifically referred to a previous judgment in case of Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana and Another (Click to Download) where it had held that the word "wife" should be interpreted in a broad and expansive sense if the couple had lived as husband and wife (Domestic Relationship) for a sufficiently long period. The court said this would be in tune with the principles of social justice embodied in the Constitution of India, and decided in favour of the wife seeking maintanance.

##### The Apex Court observed the following:

Social Justice and Interpretation of 'Wife':
The Court made it clear that Section 125 CrPC is a social justice law, and as such, it should be given a liberal interpretation. The word 'wife' should not be interpreted in a way as to unduly limit its operation.

Previous Conflicting Judgments:
The Court took into consideration previous conflicting judgments where the claim for maintenance by a second wife during a subsisting first marriage had been disallowed. However, the Court distinguished the same, holding that Appellant No. 1 was separated from her first husband on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding and therefore, was not receiving any maintenance from him.

Prior Marriage-Aware:
The Court mentioned that the Respondent was very well aware of Appellant No. 1's first marriage and entered into marriage with him knowingly, not once but twice, which therefore, should not allow him to get the benefits of legal loopholes.

Purpose of Maintenance:
The Court has reiterated that maintenance is not a benefit conferred upon the wife but a legal and moral obligation of the husband. It is meant to forestall vagrancy and destitution and provide a degree of financial independence for women, mainly homemakers who do not have an independent source of income.

Financial and Residential Security of Women:
The Court observed that the financial security as well as security of residence of Indian women have to be protected and enhanced.

Thus, Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, restored the order of the Family Court directing the payment of maintenance to the wife and child as decided by the Family Court Hyderabad

Coram: Justice B. V. Nagarathna And Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Between: Smt. N. Usha Rani And Anr Vs Moodudula Srinivas
Date of Judgment: 30-01-2025