The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not a mere benefit for a wife but a legal and moral duty owed by the husband. The ruling came in response to a Criminal Appeal filed by a wife challenging a Telangana High Court decision.
SUPREME COURT’S KEY OBSERVATIONS
A two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma stated:
“We are aware that this Court has previously denied maintenance in cases of subsisting marriages (See Yamunabai (supra) and Bakulabai (supra)). However, a plea of separation from the first marriage was not made in those cases and hence, they are factually distinguishable. It must be borne in mind that the right to maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband.”
The Bench also referred to the landmark judgment in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana and Another (2024).
CASE BACKGROUND
The Appellant married in 1999 and had a son in 2000. Disputes led to their separation in 2005, after which an MoU was executed, dissolving the marriage. The Appellant later married the Respondent in 2006, and their marriage was registered. The couple had a daughter in 2008 but soon developed differences, leading to legal disputes, including complaints under Sections 498A, 406, 506, and 420 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Seeking financial support, the Appellant filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court granted Rs. 3,500/- per month to the Appellant and Rs. 5,000/- per month to her daughter. However, the Telangana High Court later upheld only the daughter’s maintenance, denying the same to the Appellant because her first marriage had not been legally dissolved.
SUPREME COURT’S RULING AND REASONING
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a woman can claim maintenance from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly still valid. The Court observed:
“The short question before us is whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting. … The present case does not concern a live-in relationship. The Family Court made a factual finding that Appellant No. 1 married the Respondent and that finding is not disputed by the Respondent. Instead, the Respondent seeks to defeat the right to maintenance by claiming that his marriage to Appellant No. 1 is void ab initio as her first marriage is still subsisting.”
The Court further stated that the Respondent knowingly married the Appellant twice and that the MoU signified the end of her first marriage, despite the absence of a formal divorce decree. It emphasized:
“Therefore, barring the absence of a legal decree, Appellant No. 1 is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that marriage.”
While interpreting maintenance laws, the Court upheld a broad, welfare-oriented approach, stressing that denying maintenance would promote vagrancy and destitution. The Court also clarified that concerns regarding dual maintenance were unfounded, as the Appellant was not receiving support from her first husband.
FINAL VERDICT
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Appellant and reinstated the Family Court’s maintenance order.
CASE DETAILS
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 129)
Appellant’s Legal Representation: AOR Shekhar Kumar, Advocates A.K. Thakur, Santosh, Rishi Raj, Sujeet Kumar, Ningthem Oinam, and Amrita Srivastava.
Respondent’s Legal Representation: AOR D. Mahesh Babu.
